BS: Non posting of judgements week.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:21 AM

The strange thing is that while Jeri and Big Mick have made no secret about their un-paid, giving of their free time, editing status, the other names mentioned, as far as I know, have never been brought up and the Members named now become a target for ridicule due to a Guess!

They know who they are, I know who I am - the only guess here is who you may be. I really doubt if any of those posters mentioned are at any risk of becoming targets of ridicule simply as a result of anything that I may post.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:16 AM

"Subject: RE: New Folk Club 9in Hull)
From: GUEST,Thornton Curtis - PM
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 11:15 AM

Mr Ted and followers - congratulations - you appear to have found another thread to inhabit. Just before you succeed in killing any interest in this one, perhaps you could continue your hilarious activities on your other masterpieces - threads that will no doubt allow you to maintain the highest quality and impressive quantities of fascinating dialogue for years to come.

There's a good fellow."

2 years 4 months and counting!

G.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,GEUST
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:13 AM

So why still the need for secrecy ?

when most modern internet forums are run quite smoothly enough
by volunteer mods and admins
who confidently accept the responsibility and status of their role
by openly & publicly disclosing their position and "board ID"
to all other members subject to their authority ?

.. could it possibly be because the average age at mudcat
is possibly more 'senior' than most other public music forums,
and members here are of a generation that grew up
conditioned by the paternalistic culural politics, suspicion & paranoia
of the "Cold War" era ?????


..or maybe not !!??


Btw, in the ouside 3D world I have encountered many voluntary arts institutions
and shared interest 'hobby' groups
where the social interaction of members is manipulated and poisoned
by the furtive behind-closed-doors intrigues, plotting and backstabbings,
indulged in by elderly commitee office holders..

..seems there are always so many vain vindictive old monsters desperate to cling to power and influence
at any cost
to everyone else but themselves..

[ even in the most petty and insignificant local social groupings ]

..but as I said, thats just Btw........

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 09:58 AM

Thank God you aren't one!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 09:22 AM

Well to cheer you up Roger, when I was in the US asked Max how many 'clones' there are, he said "about 10", there may be more or less now, as that was last October.
I know a couple of names but that's all, and of course I wouldn't dream of repeating them to anyone else!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:31 AM

No offence taken. I'm innocent.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,Now that is a Low move
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:29 AM

My Comments are not directed at you Kendall.

They are directed at The Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,Now that is a Low move
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:27 AM

Well I don't see any clone bashing from the last Poster by my goodness nothing like 'outing' people that should have had the protection of remaining anon, if that was their wish.
The strange thing is that while Jeri and Big Mick have made no secret about their un-paid, giving of their free time, editing status, the other names mentioned, as far as I know, have never been brought up and the Members named now become a target for ridicule due to a Guess! I think that the last poster may very well be way off base with that particualr stab in the dark.
It may not amount to actually bashing a 'Clone' in the last posters eyes but it certainly setting certain people up to be verbally attacked on the Mudcat regardless of wether they are or aren't one of the people behind the Scenes. Bit of a cruel jab of the 'word sword' there I think. Unless they wish to make it Public, is a suspected Clone's identity supposed to flung around in the public arena or would it be more mannerly to PM the Clones that one suspects and ask if the wish their names to be made public as suspected Clones! Either way. Now most people reading the last Posters remarks will always wonder about the two people mentioned that have never publicly stated they are or are not Volunteers behind the scenes here. Good job Shambles. Bravo.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:25 AM

BS, Members only, great idea, let's do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 04:31 AM

Shambles, no more clone bashing.

Not guilty. Never bashed one in my life, my lord.

Apart from the Chief of the Mudcat Editorial team - the only posters trusted with edit buttons that I know the names of are yourself, Mick, Jeri, katlaughing and (possibly still) Catspaw. The evidence will show that despite much provocation - I have resisted the temptation to respond in kind to any personal attacks from any of these posters. If any anonymous ones feel that I have knowing 'bashed' them – it is difficult to see how I can be held responsible for this by expressing my honest viws, especially as I do not know who they are.   

I am sure that they will post views that I may not agree with and when I post to do this – I would hope that they and everyone else will not judge this to be 'bashing' them or anyone else personally. I hope agree that simply not being in agreement and trying to express the reasons why – is not what you would consider as 'bashing'?

What those posters with edit buttons (and their supporters) may post in response to my posting views that may not be in total agreement with them – is not in my control. If some form of future peace is the object is it really helpful if any form of public disagreement over the nature and structure of imposed censorship action on our forum is be taken as personally as it currently appears to be encouraged to be taken by some of those posters with edit buttons? For when these sort of responses and those from other posters who would post in support – set this example – it is one that is generally going to be followed.

Posts from known posters with edit buttons or anonymous posters with edit buttons or those without edit buttons - who may wish to publicly judge the shortcomings of their fellow posters and to state which of their fellow posters they may wish to ban - are totally counter-productive. For our forum's host and the site's owner who was the one who issued the invitation for the public to contribute here - does not make such judgements.

I feel that it is now 'crunch' time. The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has now publicly admitted the failure of this current 'system' and as a result has proposed that the BS section of our forum becomes a member's only forum. This is a failure that many posters may be in agreement with but a proposal that many may not be in agreement with. But from this point - there is no going back.

One of the real pleasures of the forum that Max has provided for us – is the public's involvement. This does bring some problems but nothing that common sense measures and a realistic approach cannot deal with.

Those who think that a forum is for posting only public judgements of their fellow poster's worth as device to intentionally exclude anyone who may express a different view - are welcome to start a private members club of their own. One in which they can do just that and control every aspect. But despite what certain members appear to think - that place has never been The Mudcat Discussion Forum and I hope and trust that it never will be……………………….

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:28 PM

Yeah, it's a bit like The Pirate Coast here at times, but if we all work together we can do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:19 PM

*meditating on the truces I have seen in recent years*

ah, well...we can hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:15 PM

Seconded, Bert.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 12:07 PM

OK guys, The weeks nearly over, let's start working on a truce.

Shambles, no more clone bashing.

Joe, no more deleting messages just 'cos you find them annoying.

Everyone else let us all keep quiet for a while and see if this goes away.

Now as my Dad always used to say "Kiss and make up"

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: JennyO
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 09:07 AM

Well Alba, the good news is that the week will be over in about 14 hours.

The bad news is that we won't be able to tell the difference....

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Alba
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 08:42 AM

Is the week over!? Someone, tell me that a week has passed since the start of "non posting of judgements week" began .. Please .:)

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jacqui.c
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 08:21 AM

And you're trying to start an argument on 'When I first joined the 'Mudcat'. Is it any wonder that you get such bad press?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: JennyO
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 04:32 AM

Jeeziz Roger, the guy makes an innocent mistake and makes it clear that he understands now, and you go and jump all over him.

Sounds to me like you're making a judgment!

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 01:22 AM

I find it grossly offensive to cut and paste PMs. I thought they were supposed to be private. I would never consider posting someone's PM... even Shambles...

Jerry

It has ben clarified and established to your satisaction that the message from the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team was NOT a personal messgage but a public posting.

Now it has, do you have any similar judgement to pass on the example set by the nature and content of this and similar post's from those who feel qualified to sit in public judgement of their fellows but judge that they should be above judgement themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 07:08 PM

Thanks for the clarification.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 06:59 PM

Whiners.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:51 PM

Jerry, look at the header for each message. That's what he's copying

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:50 PM

I guess I don't get it, Wolfgang: It appears to me that Shambles does post PMs from Joe. What am I missing?

Jerry

Jerry I know I am supposed to be the devil incarnate but please don't assume this and try and find yet more terrible things to accuse me of.

If you look at any post - next to the name of the poster you will see PM.

It is a link and a click on this will enable you to send a PM to that poster.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: number 6
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:46 PM

It is a nice sky out there ... then why are we sitting in here reading this continuious thread of verbal monotony?

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:44 PM

I guess I don't get it, Wolfgang: It appears to me that Shambles does post PMs from Joe. What am I missing?

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:38 PM

WAUGH!@ By God, that is a nice sky out there today....

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:35 PM

I'd like to know too. Bert, I never thought you edited things like that. What a surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Alba
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:33 PM

Bert may I ask what you mean by your last post? Honest question.
Thanks
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Bert
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:29 PM

...And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment... unless of course we find the message annoying.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:11 PM

Jerry,

nobody does that here, only Shambles' way of cutting and posting may give a wrong impression at the first glance.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 03:57 PM

I find it grossly offensive to cut and paste PMs. I thought they were supposed to be private. I would never consider posting someone's PM... even Shambles...

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 03:37 PM

"Roger while no one can doubt your sincerity in the quest to fight against the PEL fiasco, one question keeps occurring to me.
Why did you choose an American owned and run site, a site where the PEL doesn't affect most of the members, to run your campaign?
Why did you flood a site where Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Germans, Argentinians,and Scots post regularly, none of whom are affected by this new legislation?
Why in view of these facts did you object to the letters UK being added to your post title, when it didn't relate to the majority of those who use this site?
You yourself keep saying that if you don't like a specific post don't read it, yet when these letters were added to save people reading something which was of no moment to them, you object.
I'm sorry Roger but you have gone beyond reason on this one, and in so doing you have alienated people who might otherwise have supported you.
Did you conduct a similar campaign on any other site, or were there rules on them that prevented you doing so?
Giok"


I thought I'd play you at your own game Roger and quote one of my own posts which I noticed you hadn't tresponded to.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 03:29 PM

Roger, I will respond this way, and for the last time, because you just don't get it.
Old Jewish saying, "If a man calls you an ass, ignore him. If TWO men call you an ass, get a saddle." Over and out.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 02:33 PM

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 12 Aug 05 - 03:30 PM

You see, Roger, most of us are here to have a good time among friends. All of your adversarial crap is just that - adversarial crap. We volunteers do what we need to do to keep the peace and tidy things up. Nobody's out to offend your right to free speech - but if you insist on making an asshole of yourself, you're likely to be treated like an asshole. Basically, Mudcat is here for enjoyment - not for all this heavy stuff you try to lay on us. You want to play war games, and that's not what we're here for.

No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems.

If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 02:15 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Are all bigots male?
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 26 Feb 06 - 01:41 PM

No, Roger. You are confusing intolerance with bigotry. It is not a male thing, but you knew that when you set the bait in this thread. And intolerance is not always a bad thing, where bigotry is always bad, IMHO. For example: I am very intolerant of your manipulative, whiney, pathetic need to be abused and abusive. I am intolerant of your need to cry, piss and moan that you don't get the respect that you seem to think you deserve in spite of your penchant for disabusing anyone who doesn't agree with you. You give no respect, yet you demand it. In short, I am intolerant of you and wish you would seek counseling and leave this place. All of this does not make me a bigot. It makes me dislike you and all of your posts.

By the way, folks, I believe motor city mama lives in Florida if that helps you any.

Mick

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

Subject: RE: BS: Are all bigots male?
From: kendall - PM
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 07:32 AM

What Mick had to say didn't strike me as a personal attack, simply one man's opinion. An opinion that happen to agree with.

To me, a personal attack is when someone uses filthy language and/or calls someone nasty names.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 02:06 PM

However, if someone attacks you then one of the clones should put a stop to it asap.

What would you suggest should happen when it is someone with an edit button themselves who is making the nasty personal attack and would you then be surprised if other posters feel that it is safe to follow and support this example?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 01:31 PM

Roger, I did not say, nor did I imply that such things as deleting posts with which the clone simply disagrees does not happen, maybe it does, but endless chirping about it on the forum is tiresome and pointless. Take it up with Joe or Max. Even if we agree with you, it means nothing. We can do nothing about it.
I'll tell you flat out that I seldom read your posts because they are so redundant and convoluted. I find your messages difficult to understand and not very interesting. However, if someone attacks you then one of the clones should put a stop to it asap.
No, I don't expect you to provide proof just to satisfy me, I have no authority to do anything about your problem.You don't have to convince me, so stop trying.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 01:15 PM

Our forum is still just about a pleasant place - despite the best efforts of a few to turn it into a private members club.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: jeffp
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 01:11 PM

As it is that same certain few who constantly judge, moan about and find fault with what their fellow posters choose to contribute, and intentionally try to shape our forum to their tastes - perhaps when they have finally formed their own private members club - the rest of us can finally be left to post in peace?

Looking in the mirror at last?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 01:07 PM

And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done.
Joe Offer

In this threadhttp://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=88940&messages=275&page=1&desc=yes

Our forum is still just about a pleasant place - despite the best efforts of a few to turn it into a private members club. As it is that same certain few who constantly judge, moan about and find fault with what their fellow posters choose to contribute, and intentionally try to shape our forum to their tastes - perhaps when they have finally formed their own private members club - the rest of us can finally be left to post in peace?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 12:59 PM

Can't see what repetitive postings quoting the same 3rd party posts over and over again is adding to the discussion.
Nor for that matter pasting in quotations, sayings and poems from other sources. None of these is original and are just as much copycat stuff as that which people have complained about. At least there is a degree of originality in rewording a thread title while there is none in posting the works of others.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 12:57 PM

A rogue clone running amok? Come on, how long do you think Joe or Max would allow that? With a touch of a button, the rogue could be made powerless.

When we look into a mirror, we see two people. Our best friend and our worst enemy.

It's obvious to me that the clones are un named because if they were known, the personal attacks would only get worse, and God knows there are enough of those already. If you come at someone with your horns out, there can be only one predictable response.You don't need a PHd to figure that out.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 12:50 PM

Disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. Deleting a long rambling cut and paste is not a personal attack. Suggesting that someone go away is not a personal attack.

There is no shortage of this but do I really have to provide the evidence here of who called me what so YOU can judge if it is a personal attack - as defined by you?

The point is simply that you cannot expect to prevent such things - not that much really effort goes into this anyway as compared to protecting us from copycat threads and the like - if the example given is that such things are OK if the target is thought so terrible as to be fair game for such personal attacks.

Disagreeing (or agreeing) with anyone is not a nasty personal attack. Doing it by just posting I (or we) think you are a ....... and publicly suggesting that someone you have never met is suffering from poor mental health - is.

Deleting a long cut and past can be a nasty personal attack when certain posters are always safe from this and some are not. It would however, always be imposed censorship.

Suggesting publicly that another poster goes away because you may not like what they choose to post perhaps could be considred as a nasty personal attack as this is not a matter for anyone but our forum's host and site owner.

I suggest it is not how nasty we may judge a post but perhaps how nice it is or how much it adds to a discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GUEST,Inspector Clueso
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 11:14 AM

A mere week of pleasant interaction and posts of the caring, kind and grateful nature displayed on this thread hardly seems long enough. In fact the Thread's name itself hardly lives up to what is contained within.
Can you feel the Luvvvvvvvvv...Max, Jeff, Joe, Clones (including the 'rougue clone', now that is a particularly pathetic suggestion) It must warm your Hearts when you read some of these touching comments from people obviously not enjoying a Forum that you all run for no income and give of your time so freely in order to bring so much misery to a few.
It also must feel good to know that some of these People just keep coming back and back and back, unlike others who disliked the mudcat and therefore made the silly decision to simply go somewhere else more to their taste.
That would just be-----------(pick a word: sensible, simple, obvious, logical) It would seem however that it is better to stay around somewhere that offends and wounds and does all manner of terrible things and 'attempt' to ruin it for those who find the mudcat to be a great place to be a member of.
Perhaps Max could give some advice to all these poor hurt souls, that dislike the mudcat so much, regarding how to get a Forum of their own up and running.
It would be interesting to see how the current crop of mudcatslayers would handle, what would be, without a doubt, the avalanche of abuse their forums would receive.
Most of the whining is jealousy based simply because the negative few are not technically advanced enough to start their version of the mudcat. I find the mudcatslayers very silly people but entertaining in a 'noir' way.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:53 AM

Bert, my friend-- my dearly loved friend--

If you really know that something is amiss among the clones, I think that you know that the place to bring that up is in private conversation with Max, Jeff, and/or Joe. In fact if you even suspect it, that's where the matter belongs. It does not belong in a Forum thread.

Even if you still have editing authorization that allows you to see deleted material, which I don't think you do, this is not the place.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:48 AM

This is becoming surreal. First we had the Shambles complaining about a thread title of his being amplified. That translated into 'censorship'. In due course, we have Bert telling us that whole posts of Sham's have been deleted- arbitrarily and with malice. The Shambles does NOT join Bert; he doesn't even address it. He does NOT at that point tell us which posts or when or what the subject(s) of them were.

So we morphed on. Now we are being told of a 'rogue clone' who in the shadowss of anonymity is zapping everything that he or she does not like.

Is this all really true? Where does this end? Stay tuned.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: GEUST
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:18 AM

"then you are going to meet a clone who will educate you"


so would that be the mysterious rogue vigilante clone !?

..as rumoured to be running amok

and deleting
any other mudcat member's written contributions
on personal whim ?


the rogue clone hiding in the shadows taking full advantage
of his / her secret identity,

abusing the power & authority of the the "DELETE BUTTON"
he / she has been granted..

deleting without warning, discussion with, or consent from clone peers,
any material that personaly displeases or 'disgusts' him / her ?

..and in so doing, abusing the trust of Joe & Max, and all other clones ?


the rogue clone apparently conducting a petty personal crusade
to impose his / her
personal agenda and moral beliefs on all other mudcat members ?

the rogue clone who enjoys the thrill of power and control
over mudcat community..

who demonstrates, by his / her arbitrary deleting actions,
scant regard or respect
for the ideas and opinions and 'moral education standards'
of fellow diverse international mudcat members ?

the rogue clone who might thrive most effectively
in a negative cultural climate of suspicion, mistrust,
resentment & paranoia ?

the rogue clone who may be personaly resposible for,
and perpetuating,
much of the escalating unpleasantness here at mudcat ?


..so who can that rumoured mystery rogue clone be ?

perhaps the clone we mere mortal squalid morally repugnant transgressors

must live in fear of one day "meeting and being educated by" !!!!???


any clues ?

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:39 AM

Disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. Deleting a long rambling cut and paste is not a personal attack. Suggesting that someone go away is not a personal attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:56 AM

If you don't know the difference between a spirited debate and a personal attack, then you are going to meet a clone who will educate you.

Yes I agree - some of them will really teach you by example what a nasty personal attack is and exactly how to go about it. It has certainly been an education for me...............

Yes I do know that is not what you meant to say Kendall but what you say does not make sense when it is (some of) the clones who are posting only these nasty personal attacks and judgements and encouraging others to follow this example.

Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week.
From: kendall
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:30 AM

I know that certain threads have contained nasty posts and vicious name calling, ie: ..fucking asshole, etc. and in my opinion they SHOULD have been deleted. If you don't know the difference between a spirited debate and a personal attack, then you are going to meet a clone who will educate you.If you are looking for a "dust up" then post a personal attack and you will get it.Just don't come running to me.

I've never posted anything that was deleted because I contradicted Joe, so I can't comment on that.