 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Deleted posts & closed threads
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: catspaw49 Date: 08 Aug 06 - 07:11 PM LMAO......." and Max does not feel forced into finding some justification to exclude me - I will still be interested in being a contributor." He owns the site and asked you to leave......shouldn't be anymore justification needed. But I gues you're just "special" aren't you Roger?.....LOL........ You really ARE mental Dude! Spa
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 08 Aug 06 - 06:56 PM Is The Shambles not a member? The absence of "GUEST" before his name appears to indicate that he is. So, any change as described won't affect him one bit, right? So this is all rhetorical BS, right? Had our forum been exclusive rather that inclusive all those years ago - I would have had no interest in being a contributor. Whilst our forum struggles with the down side of remaining open for the public's contributions - and at the same time receives the benefits of this - and Max does not feel forced into finding some justification to exclude me - I will still be interested in being a contributor. When - our forum becomes limited to members only posting - Max will not have to exclude me - as I would have no interest in contributing on this basis. I think it is a dishonest cop-out to now lobby for our forum to be restricted and changed into a private members only club. There are many ordinary sites for those who wish to pick and choose only like-minded fellow posters. Those who like such things are welcome to them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Dave the Gnome Date: 08 Aug 06 - 05:48 PM It's wonderful what you can learn from Stephen Fry. Be astounded yourselves and see that there is a word for it. Look up Battology :D (tG) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: number 6 Date: 08 Aug 06 - 04:20 PM ... I should add of course ... I did add the detergent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: number 6 Date: 08 Aug 06 - 04:04 PM "Why not do something constructive, like help your wives? Oh, and the nancy boys can go knit something." I loaded dishes in the dishwasher today,and even set on! ... as per knitting, way too complicated for me. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 08 Aug 06 - 03:14 PM come off it shambles - MAX knows who his moderators are - and he is the only one who needs to know. Besides - anyone with half a brain can pretty well tell you who has an edit button. Good idea - I'll ask Catspaw............. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: MMario Date: 08 Aug 06 - 02:56 PM come off it shambles - MAX knows who his moderators are - and he is the only one who needs to know. Besides - anyone with half a brain can pretty well tell you who has an edit button. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 08 Aug 06 - 02:53 PM not to mention being willing to stand behind their words with an identity! MMario - as a supporter of anonymous 'moderators' are you serious? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bill D Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:56 PM *pay no attention the the woman behind that curtain!* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: MMario Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:53 PM not to mention being willing to stand behind their words with an identity! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bill D Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:50 PM well, we men, being idiots, often resort to obfuscations....unlike women, who are always clear, helpful and organized. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Big Mick Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:49 PM You and I know who GUEST is from way back, Spaw. She has been this way forever, especially if anyone is critical of her posts. I cook, help my wife, she helps me, I hunt, love good conversation, play love songs and rebel songs, do laundry, spend much time with the kids ..... a professional such as this person purports herself to be, would not make such assertions. They are done in a gratuitous fashion and don't do credit to a pro. Roger, for years, has abused this forum. He sets himself up to be a martyr. He baits folks, then cries when they respond. A real pro in mental health would see that. I have simply had enough. Anyone who has read my posts would know that I have spent a lifetime advocating on behalf of the underdog. Most of what I sing about deals with folks facing adversity. Rog is not an underdog. He is just another bully who covers it up with a different demeanor. He sets up predicates that he can attack no matter how one answers. There is no interest in decent discourse, only in feeding his need to be a martyr. There was a time where I tried to understand him. But the day came when I realized I cared about this more than he did. Please leave. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: GUEST Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:43 PM Big deal. I do all that AND work a full time job. I'm not impressed and calling me a female chauvinist is just an obfuscation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: catspaw49 Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:41 PM This morning I did two loads of wash, folded, hung, and put away. I cooked breakfast, did the dishes, made a quick run to Kroger's, and wiped down the leather interior in Karen's car. Try not to be such a female chauvinist Guest. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: GUEST Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:26 PM You men are all idiots! You don't seem to be smart enough to do anything else but conduct these inane arguments. Why not do something constructive, like help your wives? Oh, and the nancy boys can go knit something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: catspaw49 Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:12 PM Ya' know I think Shambolina is getting worse mentally. His posts are becoming more convoluted and I didn't think that was possible..... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: MMario Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:11 PM BTW - they are not "our" moderators. they are Max's. any and all powers they have on this site are derived from and granted by Max. Not by "fellow posters", not by consensus, not be anything except the grace of Max. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Big Mick Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:10 PM I am a Moderator. Please leave. Max is the owner. He has asked you to leave. Please do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: MMario Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:09 PM since Max reserves the right to modify edit etc any post to the forum, and the moderators act as Max's proxies; there is no need for any poster to make ANY sort of judgement about censorship on the forum. There is no censorship. There is merely the site owner exercising his rights. period. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:07 PM If no indication is to be provided - where any form of imposed action has been judged to be required - how can any poster make an informed judgement whether the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our forum is proportionate? Is it fair that posters should they be asked or expected to support it and our 'moderators' - without any indication of its true nature and current level? Is it fair to be expected to blindly trust our 'moderators' in this - when they do not trust posters enough to inform them of who they are? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bill D Date: 08 Aug 06 - 12:17 PM "I am not bound to please thee with my answers." William Shakespeare |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bill D Date: 08 Aug 06 - 12:05 PM I can barely figure out from your convoluted phrasing even what the question IS! You constantly set up questions so that ANY answer just leads to more questions. I have noted before that your questions are loaded like the infamous "When will you stop beating your wife?" The only answer possible is that editors who are empowered to BE editors *MAY* edit in the manner of their choosing! They *MAY* place comments where they wish. It is not up to me to decide. Nor is it up to YOU! People have tried to reply to you rationally....they have tried pleading....they have tried humor....they have tried ridicule....they have tried insults....and they have even tried ignoring. Nothing works, as you simply twist any reply into impossible shapes to give you another way to distort the issue and rephrase the problem....which is ONLY a problem to you! I am a damned fool for even answering you at all! You sound like a Turing Test gone horribly wrong, and I feel like I am debating this with a poorly designed computer program! I'll stop beating my wife when you stop complaining about Mudcat policies! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 08 Aug 06 - 11:26 AM Bill D - Is there any chance of you answering the following? Do you judge that editing comments of that sort are required, belong and make sense ONLY where they are inserted into my posts? If censorship must take place - why do you consider that does not then make sense to place all editing comments where they belong? This where any form of imposed action has be judged to be required and to enable all poster to make an informed judgement on the true nature and level of censorship on our forum. Why do you consider one to be good idea and the other to be bad one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bill D Date: 08 Aug 06 - 11:15 AM well now! Max will be facsinated to discover that 'our' forum is not subject to the rules of 'his' site! You have really stretched the bounds of reason for this one, Roger! Just what might Max have authority over? The color of the script at the top? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 08 Aug 06 - 11:07 AM Also, some changes have been around a lot longer than you suggest. I think you will find Joe Offer was able to delete posts in 1998. So that need emerged very early on. It was always possible for Max to do this also. It was never a course of action that was used widely or as a first and only resort as if this were the answer to every small problem - as it would appear to be now. Intersting comment from someone who claims to have no desire to tell Max how to run Max's site. You know that following Max's public comments over the years - that I consider that there is a difference between Max's site - which is a matter for him - and our forum - which he has stated is a matter for us. A point even recognised by The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team when attempting to justify his latest personally motivated posting restrictions on me - by stating in this thread - that it is not because he wishes it, or Max wishes it - but because Mudcatters wish it. So it is obvious that Max (and even in this case, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) expects posters to decide the shape of their forum.......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: MMario Date: 08 Aug 06 - 10:05 AM I know that there is a better way and as long as I remain a poster here - I will do what I can to see if we can return to this. Intersting comment from someone who claims to have no desire to tell Max how to run Max's site. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: artbrooks Date: 08 Aug 06 - 09:59 AM "Any poster who does not agree with the way the place is being run does not have to continue being a poster. Does that also apply to those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on their fellow posters but who are still constantly complaining that they cannot impose the peace they require? And who propose to futher [sic] change our forum into member's only posting?" Is The Shambles not a member? The absence of "GUEST" before his name appears to indicate that he is. So, any change as described won't affect him one bit, right? So this is all rhetorical BS, right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: GUEST,Jon Date: 08 Aug 06 - 09:32 AM But I an not a recent arrival - I know that there is a better way and as long as I remain a poster here - I will do what I can to see if we can return to this. The Mudcat method has always been to react (and at times a little too late) rather than anticipate in its approach to providing "moderation tools", its forum policy, etc. Changes have been introduced as shortcomings in your "better way" emerged. A Mudcat system like the help formum which worked in 1997 would fail dismaly with Mudcat in 2006. Also, some changes have been around a lot longer than you suggest. I think you will find Joe Offer was able to delete posts in 1998. So that need emerged very early on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Grab Date: 08 Aug 06 - 07:02 AM I see that it is now appears to be accepted that our forum is here for the benefit of its 'moderators'. When did I say that? In case it wasn't clear, the moderators are here for the good of the forum. The requirement for moderation has been set by Max, a long long time ago. If you believe the forum needs to be unmoderated, you'll have to convince him first. If you believe the site owner is wrong and you're not prepared to live with the conditions he imposes on the site, feel free to leave. If Max decided that documenting changes was required, the moderators would have to decide whether they wanted to stay as moderators (with the extra time that would take), or whether they wished to give up being moderators. Fine. But until Max (or Joe or Jeff, as the people who run day-to-day stuff) decides that this is required, it is not compulsory on the moderators to do this. You can request it, but if they disagree then you have no standing to insist on it. But I am not a recent arrival As a matter of fact, in a rather crucial way you are. You were on the site ages back, yes, but you left (voluntarily) several years ago due to similar disagreements. You then returned to the site some time later. At that point, things were exactly as they are now. It was absolutely your choice to return to the Mudcat, knowing full well what the conditions were. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: manitas_at_work Date: 08 Aug 06 - 06:58 AM "But I an not a recent arrival - I know that there is a better way and as long as I remain a poster here - I will do what I can to see if we can return to this. " You don't know there is a better way, you just think it. Max thinks the best way is to let Joe and clones moderate the forum. Whose opinion carries more weight? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 08 Aug 06 - 05:46 AM Any poster who does not agree with the way the place is being run does not have to continue being a poster. Does that also apply to those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on their fellow posters but who are still constantly complaining that they cannot impose the peace they require? And who propose to futher change our forum into member's only posting? What hope is there when those who you would consider are now running it - admit their failure, do not like what they have created but show no sign of changing this failed approach - or of leaving? This 'like or lump it' approach is not one that would have attracted me to posting on our forum - it is an intolerant, mean-sprited and fairly recent approach. Had I just arrived - it would be a case of 'lumping it'. But I an not a recent arrival - I know that there is a better way and as long as I remain a poster here - I will do what I can to see if we can return to this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Manitas_at_home Date: 08 Aug 06 - 02:18 AM Any poster who does not agree with the way the place is being run does not have to continue being a poster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 07 Aug 06 - 07:37 PM And your clear implication from that last post is that if it doesn't actively harm the forum then it should be compulsory. Now you could request that the moderators jump up and down on one leg and sing "Clementine" before they delete a post. It wouldn't harm the forum for them to do that, but they're pretty unlikely to do it. I was under the impression that our forum is here for the benefit of its posters. I see that it is now appears to be accepted that our forum is here for the benefit of its 'moderators'. Any 'moderator' who would consider that always indicating where and why any form of censorship action was undertaken - would be placing an unrealistic burden upon them - does not have to continue being a 'moderator' - do they? The problem I have always had is that our known and our anonymous 'moderators' haved not considered that inserting many forms of editing comments and personal attacks all over my posts - to be any form of burden to them at all.....It often appears that they are fighting amongst themselves to do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: manitas_at_work Date: 07 Aug 06 - 11:30 AM "Well the answer may may little logical sense given the circumstances and be flying in the face of the facts, but I can respect that it is the answer you have provided. You have not ignored my question - just made it clear that you have not accepted it. " I accepted the question but not your premise. My answer is more logical than your first sentence above though. I just don't accept that the facts are as you imply. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 07 Aug 06 - 11:24 AM "Paul - as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, in the above editing comment - first inserted in the long-running thread that he closed - is making no secret of this attempt and special treatment - perhaps you may wish to reconsider?" No. Well the answer may may little logical sense given the circumstances and be flying in the face of the facts, but I can respect that it is the answer you have provided. You have not ignored my question - just made it clear that you have not accepted it. Unlike Bill D - who has just ignored the following questions. Do you judge that editing comments of that sort are required, belong and make sense ONLY where they are inserted into my posts? If censorship must take place - why do you consider that does not then make sense to place all editing comments where they belong? This where any form of imposed action has be judged to be required and to enable all poster to make an informed judgement on the true nature and level of censorship on our forum. Why do you consider one to be good idea and the other to be bad one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Bill D Date: 07 Aug 06 - 10:48 AM I think it's sort of a backhanded honor to be ignored by Shambles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Grab Date: 07 Aug 06 - 08:07 AM Do you judge that editing comments of that sort are required, belong and make sense ONLY where they are inserted into my posts? As per my comments on another thread - no. If I've started a thread and it gets renamed by Joe/Jeff/anyone else, fine. If I disagree, I'll PM Joe and ask. If I get the answer back that it was for reason XYZ and Joe thinks it's in the best interests of the forum that it keeps this new name, that's as far as it goes - I may disagree, but I accept that it's his call. This is called "working within a moderated forum" and it's what everyone else on the Internet manages to do. Why is it so hard for you? I notice that you haven't answered a single question from my previous post, all of which are relevant to opinions you've expressed. One might almost say that you're ignoring me. Is it anything personal that I should feel offended by and start a campaign against you about...? Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: manitas_at_work Date: 07 Aug 06 - 06:05 AM "Paul - as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, in the above editing comment - first inserted in the long-running thread that he closed - is making no secret of this attempt and special treatment - perhaps you may wish to reconsider?" No. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Big Mick Date: 06 Aug 06 - 07:46 PM See how he does this boys and girls? This morning he noticed that no one was paying attention, so he throws out a piece of bait. Shambles gets nervous when people start to ignore him. I have seen him post two and three times to entice folks into the same old, same old, tired argument. Shambles, for months you asked Max to respond to you. When he did, you didn't listen. He asked you to leave. Please do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 06 Aug 06 - 07:13 PM "Can it be explained why my request that any editing comments (especially those containing only personal opinions) are not inserted into my posts without my prior permission is ignored?" ....see above. NOT ignored, just not accepted. Editorial comments of that sort BELONG at the point where the editing was done. It makes sense to put the comments there, whether you approve or not! Bill D Do you judge that editing comments of that sort are required, belong and make sense ONLY where they are inserted into my posts? If censorship must take place - why do you consider that does not then make sense to place all editing comments where they belong? This where any form of imposed action has be judged to be required and to enable all poster to make an informed judgement on the true nature and level of censorship on our forum. Why do you consider one to be good idea and the other to be bad one? I have little objection to editing comments of explanation being inserted into my posts. What I have objected to are personal views and judgements being inserted into my posts - under cover of this and not refreshing the thread. When if these need to be posted - they should be contained in conventional posts and refresh the thread - like the posts of every ordinary poster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: jeffp Date: 06 Aug 06 - 07:12 PM Perhaps not |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 06 Aug 06 - 06:26 PM It doesn't HAVE to be 'harmful' to be a bad idea. Perhaps - something that does not do any harm - could be the very thing that defines it as a good idea? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Grab Date: 06 Aug 06 - 04:52 PM In my view the qualification required for any 'moderator'... If that was aimed at me, you misunderstand - I'm not a moderator at all. I'm just your average bod, with no more rights than you had *before* you started mass-mailing across unrelated threads. But perhaps you would accept that there is currently a determined attempt by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to try to selectively limit these views? And perhaps we wouldn't. Your "right" (however much of one you have) to express your views has not been affected. All that Joe has said (and he's said it many times) is that expression of the same view simultaneously in more than one thread is redundant and so will be merged/deleted. just to accept the fact that they are being made....... See, that's the thing. Certainly it's a fact that you're under restrictions. But the reason - well, let's see. Have you, or have you not, carried out mass off-topic postings and copy-paste postings? Were you, or were you not, been told not to do it, under penalty of sanctions taken against you? Did you, or did you not, continue to do it after warnings? And given that there is ample evidence that the answer to all three of these is "yes you did", why do you now complain about sanctions being taken against you? Posts from back in 2004 show that Joe was perfectly civil to you. Back in 2004, he had no problems with you at all. Two years later, after causing him untold hassle and wasted time, are you surprised that he doesn't like you? But even so, he's said explicitly that you're allowed to post what you like. You're just limited to how many threads you can do it on. Does this sound like the actions of someone dishing out arbitrary punishments? but would you judge the closure of the Affected by the Licensing Act 2003 thread There's a thread by that name which is *not* closed - still very much active, and you posted to it today. Searching back three years, there is no other thread with the same name. Has an old one been renamed? Or was it reopened after having been closed in error? I asked this earlier, and you never answered. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: GUEST Date: 06 Aug 06 - 01:30 PM mudcatters blame liberals, BNP'ers, trolls, the lot, to explain why mudcat has regressed into a gutter for fighting and abuse. But the truth is, there has been a huge reduction in liberal fighting, (except for usual discussion) BNP'ers (can't remember the last time?) and trolls (they have reduced you cant deny) and yet the fighting continues unabated. When will people learn nobody is to blame but us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 06 Aug 06 - 11:54 AM Shambles, please try to remember that this is a thread about the Licensing Act. I can't allow you to hijack threads on other subjects and use them for your campaign against "Mudcat censorship." You'll find your messages, intact, in the thread titled Is closing threads censorship. If you really feel a need to discuss new aspects of the subject of censorship, you may start a new thread - but you may have only one thread active at a time on the subject, and it will be in the "BS" section. If it is littered with copy-pastes from other threads, it will most probably be closed. I repeat, this particular thread is about the Licensing Act. If anyone posts comments about Mudcat administration here, those messages will be moved to the "closing threads" thread. -Joe Offer- " But perhaps you would accept that there is currently a determined attempt by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to try to selectively limit these views? " I certainly would not! Paul - as the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, in the above editing comment - first inserted in the long-running thread that he closed - is making no secret of this attempt and special treatment - perhaps you may wish to reconsider? I am not asking you to agree with these attempts or not - just to accept the fact that they are being made....... |
|
Subject: RE: Fiddle playing and surgery From: GUEST,HarryO Date: 06 Aug 06 - 04:42 AM General Sir Mike Jackson British Army has just spent 12,000 pounds on a face lift. Things are bad when even our soldiers become vain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Alba Date: 05 Aug 06 - 09:11 PM Good to see ye Raedwulf! Yes this weary topic and this thread's starter are beyond tedious. In fact reading this person's rambles often makes me imagine being forced to listen to piped Muzak while stuck in a Lift/Elevator indefinitely with no rescue in sight . Good people could be driven to do bad things under such circumstances.. twisted smile Anyway, as I said previously, good to see you and Blessed Be Raedwulf Jude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Raedwulf Date: 05 Aug 06 - 02:47 PM Roger, you are a tedious mono-maniacal bore. I drop into Mudcat very rarely these days. I saw this title. Hard on the heels (& you'd want a sprinter's stop-watch to split them) of my first thought("Shambles will be on this thread") came the second - "Shambles started this thread". Lo & behold... Tired old drum, tired old drummer, no-one wants to listen... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: Manitas_at_home Date: 05 Aug 06 - 03:01 AM " But perhaps you would accept that there is currently a determined attempt by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to try to selectively limit these views? " I certainly would not! "Would it be pertinant and is it fact true? Perhaps Max is happy to think that posters want it that way? ..........Do they? " He has stated as much. If most posters weren't happy to accept that then you would have a lot more support. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Deleted posts & closed threads From: The Shambles Date: 05 Aug 06 - 02:41 AM The people who edit, delete, etc are all acting as Max's proxies - with his consent. Since he does, and furthermore has stated that he reserves the right to delete, alter, edit, etc ANY POST or thread on the site it is not an imposition - but a possibility for any posting. ** BY POSTING ** any author of a post on this site is agreeing to those terms. The Mudcat Cafe - reserving the right to do these things is of course very sensible but it is not the same thing as anonymous fellow posters doing this as what certainly and often would appear to be a rushed, first and only resort. Would you accept that imposed judgement and 'silent deletion' by anonymous fellow posters remains a big deal to the victim - even if (some of) the perpetrators appear to take it lightly as if it were some kind of game? It is imposition when any form of censorship action is imposed without the poster's prior knowledge and possibly against their wishes - especially when the same result may be achieved by less drastic and more open and proportionate forms of action. But no matter how sensible the principle may be - to claim that posters have ever agreed to these terms or even been asked to - is really questionable. Most of us would have taken such a thing as read anyway - without any need for it to be spelled-out. Before you can contribute on many sites you do have to agree to the terms. One of the good things about our forum is that posters do NOTt have to do this (yet). And perhaps you will accept that we have not - in any formal sense agreed to these terms - have we? MMario when you and I started posting here - they certainly was no set of terms like this - were there? And there was not this - 'The Mudcat reserves the right' etc. Perhaps you would agree that the introduction of this (and the further measures now detailed there in the FAQ - was bolting the door after many horses had already bolted? |