 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Shambles has been asked to leave
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: gnu Date: 06 Jan 07 - 03:29 PM And Joe's.... repeated 06 Jan 07 - 11:12AM above, amongst others herein.... Don't feed any of them. Over and out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Big Phil Date: 06 Jan 07 - 05:43 PM I do not understand all this malice against any one who sends in numerous posts, be they all ok, or all a load of drivel, or even downright nasty. If you have an issue with a poster, just ignore him/her. Do not reply to their posts, do not reply to any question sent by them JUST IGNORE them completely..... It will annoy them more than trying to BAN them from the forum......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Peace Date: 06 Jan 07 - 05:43 PM Max has asked Shambles to leave. Shambles has refused Max's invitation. So, is this now going to be a fourth thread on which people bash Shambles? (Yes, I am aware he can be a pain in the ass to some of you who can't leave his threads alone. I perceive that to be your problem, not his. When I feel his posts will cause me undue stress of the anal sphincter I simply don't read them. It's got nothing to do with Shambles or Max.) The question Shambles has asked is valid, and the answer to it just isn't: there has been no answer. People who respond that this is Max's site are correct. It is. It is also the work of many songwriters and musicians whose writing has been collected; a tremendous number of songs that history will be glad to have, because many would have been lost without this place. It is the work of excellent researchers like Jim, Malcolm (have you ever read this man's writing about obscure details of a song most people will never hear, and watched as he differentiates between fact, maybe fact, could be fact and speculation?), Q, Masato, George, Abby, and others I cannot recall of the top of my head and for which I apologize. It is the work of people like Amos who spent countless months enriching the 'playable music' part of the site. It is the work of people like Art and Kendall and Kytrad who have shared their memories of people and places and music. It is the work of people like Azizi who have shared her investigations into Black music/culture and thus enriched what at one time seemed like a place that wasn't open to that at all. And the work of Coltman in the Land Down Under who posts histories of people and their songs, patiently explains that YES, it is English and this is what it means, and reminds us all that it's not all about the UK and North America. It is the work of those kids who stumble in and want chords to songs because they haven't yet hit the stage where they can do it by ear, and then twenty posts follow and accomplished musicians of varying degrees argue the merits of this G position over that G position or whether the relative minor chord really interferes with the intended meaning of a word in the song. It's the work of clones who give much of their time to change thread titles so that our typos get fixed and where we meant to say Roddy McCorley doesn't remain as Roody McCooley. It is the work of countless people who write about events in 'their neck of the woods' and thus inform us all that indeed folk music is not dead--although defining that has defeated the best minds on this site. Where else can you locate a place that will talk about the distinguishing taste of certain beer, or why beer is not as good as ale, or people who had a grandfather's grandfather who not only made the stuff but also worked as a rumrunner and actually got hanged for doing things to sheep, and all in the same post? Where else? So, I think two things right now: 1) Shambles should be QUIET and wait to see if the 'shake up' changes things so that maybe he can put to rest the monkey that's been on his back for longer than I know about--and yes, IMO, there has in the past been editing that seemed to favoUr some people to the detriment of others, and YES maybe the 'shake up' will change that in both perception and reality 2) If that pisses off anyone enough to block me, go ahead |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Captain Ginger Date: 06 Jan 07 - 05:58 PM Peace... Inspiring stuff. But, as a soulless Darwinist, I'd say that the beauty of the analysis, banter, erudition and whatever that has happened here is happenstance. It is wonderful that it happened, and continues to happen, but it is irrelevant to the 'construct' that is the Mudcat forum. It's lilke the extraordinary beauty of the scales on a butterfly's wing; magical, beyond the making if any one of us, but in the wider sense, irrelevant. At root, it is Max's site; no more, no less. If, on some damp saturday afternoon, with the bairns squawling and an aunt somewhere being aunt-like, he could quite easily pull the plug. Pffft. All this would cease to be. As flies to schoolboys are we... Thus, as far as I'm concerned, I'm prepared to live in an 18th century construct, whereat Max is the Prince Esterhaze and we are the ammanuenses of latter-day Haydns. Yes, it's nice here, and some lovely things have happened, but let's not take it for granted. Maybe it's like my lovely female cat, who got run over a couple of months back. As she cooled and stiffened, and I cried like a blubbery thing, I was intrigued to see her fleas coming "to the surface"; crawling up from her skin, where there was no longer any warm food, to the tips of her fur, in the hope that the could cadge a lift on another passing mammal. As such, we should all be realists, if not opportunists... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Bernard Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:00 PM What Peace said! ;o) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Bill D Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:25 PM Yes, Peace...that is clear, pretty durn reasonable, and to my mind, nothing in it should offend anyone, whether they agree with the details or not. (I can agree the Shambles has asked a couple of important questions, but they have mostly been answered, and it is hard to separate the asking from the insisting...and has become tedious, like the kid in the back seat demanding to know "are we gonna be there SOON?") Max says stuff is happening...I'll look for more information. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Captain Ginger Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:28 PM Wanton. That's it - as flies to wanton schoolboys. And we are. Good that Max is a decent chap; more decent than most give him credit for. And so remarkably. ludicrously, lovably patient. Really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: John O'L Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:30 PM I too have been a sometime supporter of Shambles, but when I saw last night that yet another new thread had been started because yet another old one had been closed I almost posted to it. "Don't you guys ever tire of this?" is what I nearly posted, but then I thought no, responding to it is what keeps it going. Further than that I can only repeat what I've said before, and I for one am tired of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:35 PM I mean if Max had told me to leave i would do it, I wouldn't question him or post a reply I would just go |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:42 PM The Mudcat is resilient and will recover from this episode, but what are we to do about the irreparable damage to English sentence structure? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:47 PM Owning a forum is different from owning the members, but that's not a distinction all care to make. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Ebbie Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:47 PM Peace, that is lovely. Lucid, nuanced, and just plain sensible. Didn't know you had it in ya. (just kidding. As you know.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Geordie-Peorgie Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:50 PM The "English Sentence Structure"!! Duz he mean The Old Bailey (law courts) in London?? Orramma missinsummat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Captain Ginger Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:55 PM Am meringue? Probably knot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Jan 07 - 07:34 PM "...in the wider sense, irrelevant. No, Captain Ginger. "...in the narrower sense". The fact that Max could pull the plug on it all is important and I'm very grateful that he hasn't. I'm sure at times he must have felt a bot like doing that, what with all the hassle. But I suspect that, if the existing Mudcat did cease to exist, there is by now sufficient strength in it, as summed up in Peace's post there, tp give a fighting chance that, in some form or another, it would re-emerge on another site, as well as maybe in other forms. Once you bring something to life it has a life of its own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST,shocked Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:33 PM McGrath I have it on good authority that Max has never felt a bot. No way. Nowhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: The Shambles Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:37 PM I would be grateful if Max would correct the assumption given to our forum that I have sent him 796 PMs...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:48 PM He said 796 complaints, Shambles, and that is a gross understatement. Sometimes you post hundreds in a single month, and this has been going on for years. I think it's quite clear what he means to say is that the number is extremely and aggravatingly large. Why do you insist on twisting what other people say? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Gizmo Date: 06 Jan 07 - 09:29 PM I have one word to say Tendonitis! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Cruiser Date: 06 Jan 07 - 09:35 PM Max stated: "I received by 796th complaint from Shambles last night". Shambles stated: "Perhaps Max would be kind enough to correct the impression given by him to our forum that I have posted 796 PMs of complaints to him." Max did not state the word PM. Shambles, I bet that if you changed your manner just a little you would still be welcome here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Jan 07 - 09:57 PM I do think that Sham can go on a bit at times, and at times on things that I find hard to see as being of sufficient importance to justify the obsessiveness. But although I have not really done any thorough review of relevant postings, I note with some regret that I am left with a bit of an impression that some moderators may have been tending not to observe the self-restraint and balance that ought to go with their roles. I certainly feel that some posters other than Sham have been allowed excessive liberty to intimidate other posters and/or to post in terms of sexual reference that is tantamount to threat. Mostly I'm in favour of sexual reference but not when used to imply threat. That, I think, is more serious and more damaging. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: freda underhill Date: 06 Jan 07 - 10:53 PM Peace, that's a great description of what makes Mudcat good, but I've yet to read anyone wax lyrical about the delights of reading about complaints about management/mudcat bureaucracy/and various analyses/interpretations of the motives of the cat gatekeepers. Yes some posters other than Shambles have been abusive and intimidating, and I agree that they're more serious and more damaging. Shambles has been big on procedures, fairness, unfairness, and is either a voice in the wilderness or very aggravating depending on where you sit. I think he was previously given leave to post whatever the heck he wanted, so long as he confined it to particular designated threads, but he's been spreading posts on his themes into other threads again recently. This may have triggered the current development, not sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 10:58 PM Shambles has been asked by Max to leave. Why can't his posts be edited out now? Either Max asked him or he didn't. If he was asked then he is a nonentity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: freda underhill Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:29 PM Guest, I don't think Shambles is a nonentity and I think (maybe I'm wrong) the decision has been more to do with the amount of time & space shambles has taken up rather than anything else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 07 Jan 07 - 12:18 AM I think some of you are being unfair to Shambles. He hasn't done anything not permitted by Mudcat. He has never, to the best of my knowledge, abused another member or Guest. Unlike some Members and Guests (two of whom have been banned), he has never indulged in vitriolic name-calling, even when some particularly vile insults were directed at him. His posts are well-reasoned and cogent. Just because some of you disagree with them, does not make them less so. Granted, he has been a bit repetitious, but is there a post count, a limit to the number of posts we may make? Some of the moderators and elves emphasize the Mudcat credo of "do not feed the trolls and do not respond to flamers", but when it comes to Shambles' posts, they don't heed their own advice. What kind of example is that for newcomers, and some old hands who refuse to think for themselves, but instead just parrot whatever the mods say about Shambles. As I asked once before, what part of DO NOT RESPOND do you not understand? Shambles has posted some very informative, well-written pieces in the past, and I hope he will continue to do so. I look forward very much to reading them. And if I come across one of his posts with a lot of cut and paste stuff, and repetition of old grievances, I will ignore them. Seamus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Bill D Date: 07 Jan 07 - 12:51 AM "His posts are well-reasoned and cogent." ummmmm...cogent? Some of them are famous for tortious, stilted phrasing with his own particular constructs ("are seen to be") substituting for clear, to-the point language.....to the point that parodies have been written. well reasoned? I spent years studying 'reasoning', and there are many, many egregious errors and examples of "informal fallacies" present in many of his claims, assertions and examples. In the last analysis, most of his issues are subjective opinions about how & whether the administration of the forum is 'fair' and/or open & consistent. It's ok to bring it up, I suppose, in certain contexts...but he has spent YEARS of incessant harping on it after being told that, despite his campaign, it will be run as Max chooses. This 'tilting at windmills' has become a major distraction. This is NOT a matter of voting...and even if it were, he is quite outnumbered. I certainly admit that Roger has many useful talents and virtues, but his exercise of them has been quite lost in the proliferation of slippery, shifting complaints. I would guess that technically, it is still not too late to give up the cause and just post about music, fun & life...but I don't think I will hold my breath, as I don't look good in blue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST,observ'd Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:19 AM Shambles always seems to me to masochistically goad his attackers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: John O'L Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:24 AM I agree entirely with all that Seamus and Bill have said. They are both right. Reminds me of the teacher who walks into class one morning and sees a dick drawn on the blackboard. She quickly grabs the duster and erases it. She says nothing about it and commences the lesson. The next morning she comes in and sees another dick, twice as big drawn on the board. Again she rubs it out, says nothing and gets on with the lesson. The third morning when she comes in there is a huge dick the enire length of the board, with the caption: "The more you rub it the bigger it grows." The same could be said for Shambles and his obsessive behaviour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:37 AM Seamus asks:
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Podger Date: 07 Jan 07 - 03:31 AM Perhaps if the first complaint had been dealt with fairly then all of this would not have happened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Ebbie Date: 07 Jan 07 - 03:38 AM A point that is being missed here is that we were not asked if we agree with Max's request that the Shambles leave, so any differing views anyone may have are irrelevant. This is not a democracy. I would guess that if some (enough?) people PMed Max pleading for Roger's reinstatement it might make a difference. There is no reason to believe that ddressing the question on this forum will. My view is that the owner and administrative arms of this site have been extraordinarily patient. Roger on occasion has a valid point but he spends his energy pounding all and sundry into sand, seemingly making no distinction between validity and absurdity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST,Pathologist Date: 07 Jan 07 - 04:13 AM Perhaps the autopsy should end here and the body left to rest in peace. (sorry Brucie that was not a pun) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Jan 07 - 04:13 AM I dunno, Podger. I think the original complaint goes back to about 2001, when I asked Shambles to refrain from posting the same message in multiple threads. I thought I made the request quite respectfully. Was that unfair? I suppose he truly and sincerely believes that the Mudcat Editing Team is conspiring to control and pervert the minds of folkies everywhere, but how much time and effort should we be required to expend answering conspiracy theories (especially when we are the alleged conspirators)? I feel sorry for the guy and all, but what can I do to help him? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: The Shambles Date: 07 Jan 07 - 08:04 AM "Perhaps Max would be kind enough to correct the impression given by him to our forum that I have posted 796 PMs of complaints to him." Max did not state the word PM. And I have not stated that he did. However, some posters - have made various assumption from Max's words - varying from that he had received 796 complaints about me or that I had posted 796 PMs of complaints. All I have requested is that Max corects these assumptions. Let's make it clear that this is our forum but on Max's site, he can do as he wishes and this is his call. That has never been in question - but Max will still have to justify, defend and live with this call and the reasons why he feels so pressured at this point - into being seen to do something. Why is it thought that being seen to ask to leave or banning the posts of one of our forum long-term members and its biggest supporter is going to be seen to fix anything? Is this move going to result in less or more division on our forum? Will it spell the end of posters being encouraged to feel that they have some right to publicly judge the worth of and call for this or that poster to be asked to leave or banned? Or will it further encourage all this. Which along with general pedantry and the minding of everyone else's business - is what many posters appear to now think our forum and The Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum (or snitchers corner) is set up to do? But I would ask posters to examine the reasons why I am being asked to leave. Seemingly it is because of my many 'complaints'. My complaint is that our forum along with its double standards, now encourages posters to judge and complain about what their fellow posters choose to post. But I am seemingly singled-out for special treatment because unlike most eveyone else - I do not post only to judge the worth of my fellow posters but have tried of many years to address the root of what many posters see as a problem. I wonder what the figure is for all the posts and editing comments that have been complaints about me or encouragment (like this thread) to complain about me? Are those posters also going to be asked to leave for making their many complaints? Rather than be ecouraged to complain about their fellow posters and shown that example - if posters were encouraged to concentrate on their own posting - the only posting that anyone has any real control over - and to ignore anything posted that is not to their taste - this problem could easily be solved. All this IS the problem. Some posters are rewarded for complaining. And some have their posting restricted and are asked to leave. It is seen to depend on who is doing the complaining and who is being complained about. Will my leaving turn the constantly compaining baying lynch mob into nice calm puppies? Any sacrifice presented to the baying mob (once encouraged to show their teeth) will only make them worse and ready to bite the next target. The problem is all the clamour publicly encouraged against not only me but against any named poster who is publicly targeted by our 'moderators' for special treatment. Past such witch-hunts have clearly shown that getting rid of the current scape-goat will not solve the problem but only result in setting up another target. Being seen to publicly make this request to me to leave - rather that be seen to take any steps to address the real problem (i.e. the encouraged baying mob comprised of those who would judge themselves to be the nice people) is seen as a show of strength by an authority being seen to be challenged. No real authority is being challenged by me (and give me the not-nice people to deal with anytime). And publicly being seen to be asking me to leave or banning me - when being seen to be promising the self-rightous mob their pound of flesh - would be a show of weakness. Real authority is not seen to be afaid of adverse comments and not seen to be impressed by brown-nosed insincere compliments. And a real show of strength at this point would be to be seen to lift the special restrictions currently imposed on my posting. But yes it is Max's call. Whatever it is - he will have to live with it. I have made it clear that I have left before and I returned after a while when I relised this was a mistake - if Max does not wish me to post - he will have to ban me. And to think up some grounds of justification for doing so (if only to try and convince himself). For unlike some others posters who have - I have done nothing to earn any censure. This will be the message given to our forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Midchuck Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:21 AM It's only a matter of time before this will have to become a moderated forum - i. e., anyone can read, but you have to join to post, and the moderator can "unjoin" a member who is personally abusive, unnecessarily obscene, excessively wordy, etc. Of course, being a folk forum, once that happens, there will be loud cries for the exclusion of anyone who argues with the established knee-jerk liberal, totally politically correct, position on any issue; and once the conservatives and us Rational Anarchists are gotten rid of, there'll no longer be any real debate. Eventually the forum will become so bland that everyone will wander away, and the Mudcat will close down for lack of interest. Or is there a better way? Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:33 AM "This is not a democracy." But that doesn't mean the forum should submit to a dictatorship, does it? What this forum needs is to be run democratically and fairly. It has nothing to do with "ownership" in the capitalist sense. There are many good models for running forums democratically. Lots of information is available on the internet for how to do it, and do it well. I've even posted links to some of them in the past. A large part of the problem here is people acquiesing to bullying by Max and his management team, because their fear Max's retribution. Their biggest fear being that Max will pull the plug. Max has been offered money, grant writing assistance, help from forum members on programming, help from forum members on administration and moderation of the forum. People here have tried to be very patient and generous, understanding of the limits of his time and resources to keep the place afloat. So when I open a thread like this one, and see that the site owner has started a flame war thread against a poster that has been critical of the site's management, it isn't Shambles I think poorly of, but the owner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Alba Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:33 AM Joe, Harrassement would be a reason for censorship or even a reason for blocking am I correct? Best of Wishes Jude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:39 AM Why are you so anxious to see posts censored Alba? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST,jOhn Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:43 AM Qoute="I won't leave, if max wants me to leave he will have to ban me, and think of a good reason for doing so" (The Shambles). Shambles-you really are annoying. If i have a party, or musical get together or wahtever at my house, and you start annoying me, i will ask you to leave, if you dont leave, i will hit you on the head with a stick, waht i keep in the cuboard. Max does not have to give a reason for asking you to leave, he owns the place, he asked you to leave, you should leave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: freda underhill Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:45 AM why do you censor your name, Guest? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: katlaughing Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:51 AM Midchuck, I don't agree with you when you said Of course, being a folk forum, once that happens, there will be loud cries for the exclusion of anyone who argues with the established knee-jerk liberal, totally politically correct, position on any issue; and once the conservatives and us Rational Anarchists are gotten rid of, there'll no longer be any real debate. We've been through some really heated debates on being PC etc. and I resent your assumption that anyone who is liberal would want to ban you, or anyone else, with a differing viewpoint. I do think we should ban anon. guest like Janet who come here only to attack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Alba Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:53 AM I see no anxiety in the wording I used and felt none while typing Guest. I was mearly asking Joe Offer a question. Respectfully Jude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Zany Mouse Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:54 AM Let's just let this thread drop now. (Yawn) Rhiannon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST,jOhn Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:54 AM Who's Janet? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Alba Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:57 AM Now there is a suggestion worth taking up Rhiannon ..:) Hope you are doing well. Love and Light as always, Jude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Amos Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:20 AM I don't think that's quite true, Roger. I would say you have earned your censure with extraordinary effort. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Midchuck Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:20 AM We've been through some really heated debates on being PC etc. and I resent your assumption that anyone who is liberal would want to ban you, or anyone else, with a differing viewpoint. Didn't assume that anyone who is liberal would want to ban me. Just assumed that enough would that it might happen. In actuality, no one who is liberal in the classic sense would want to ban anyone, unless the proposed banee had slipped so far into personal abuse or irrelevancy that it was obvious to everyone that they were making any useful discussion impossible. For that matter, no one who is conservative in the classic sense would want to, either. America's two-party system has caused both viewpoints to calcify to the point of being oppressive, and each side realizes about the other but fails to see it in themselves. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:27 AM katlaughing, a forum moderator, said in the Posting with Civility thread: "Then there are the wolves in sheeps' clothing who appear to be wonderful, popular members, but who some know to be vicious and ugly and not to be trusted. One would never know it by their postings." "I do think we should ban anon. guest like Janet who come here only to attack." This is why you are perceived as being unjust and unfair. You abuse the authority of your position by claiming to have secret knowledge about forum posters, whether they are members or anon guests. It is clear to some of us katlaughing, that you and the other clones are operating only in your own vested self-interest (ie to "protect" your favorite posters and preserve the turf surrounding your little in-group clubhouse), and not in the best interests of the forum. The way you conduct yourselves is troubling, to say the least. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: GUEST,jOhn Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:31 AM 100! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Shambles has been asked to leave From: Tom Hamilton frae Saltcoats Scotland Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:34 AM why doesn't shambles just leave and let the rest of us get on with life |