board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web
It is currently Wed 15 Aug , 2018 5:28 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 393 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 8:51 pm 

Joined: Tue 19 Jul , 2005 12:56 am
Posts: 176
Location: Twilight Shadows
I'm very much interested with how this board governs, and since coming here I have taken an active part in the public votes and even made some comments here and there. A very noble experiment this is. Now about the issue at hand...
The current article on the age restricted forum states for gaining access:
Quote:
A member becomes eligible to access the "Thinking of England" forum after three months and 100 posts. After this time, a member can request access to the forum from an administrator.
This was ratified on 25 June, 2005 at 9:30AM GMT which I am assuming was also around the time the board was opened. So this issue as presented today should not have been new.

18, July, 2005- Enter the notorious Snowdog.... I know that my coming here caused a certain clique grief, as the 'Snowdog' thread in Bikeracks had shown. And now as I approach the required 3 months, & I'm getting close to 100 posts, this has obviously gotten some of you nervous about the possibility if my gaining access and reading whatever you have posted in the "Thinking of England" forum. Rest assured, I have no inclination to even ask for access to that forum for I have no interest in it. However, this whole issue and the rush to get this access/veto requirement drafted and in place in time, and some of the posts here, does show that anyone who has no access can and will be spoken about. So why not call it what it is... a private club. Adding any sort of veto by current members over prospective members is exactly that, and any number of ways of shading it doesn't change that. I applaude Tinsel the Elf for calling it and Tolkienpurist for his honesty.

As far as all the polls and such on this issue, I have reclused myself from voting in all of them. Now, if you want to take your shots at me, there is a thread in Bikeracks for that or there is the 'Thinking of England' forum. Please try and keep this thread on its topic, which is the business of B77.

And on that business, I think all this could have been presented alot better and clearer, for a poll for each persons proposal does seem to be bulky, and I can understand why some can get bent about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 9:10 pm 
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
User avatar

Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 8258
Location: Gibraltar
America has a list of "undesirables' - people they do not want on American soil, such as suspected terrorists, suspected infiltrators, race-hate activists etc.

Does that mean that America and the people who visit it belong in a private club?

No. It's just an exclusion list to make America feel safer and more secure.

The debate here is about how a name gets on the exclusion list in the first place. The method that balances the new member and the ToE posters rights. No one wants an OTT list that America has. Anything that excludes Cat Stevens is obvious incorrect.

In a private club, de facto, people cannot join and something needs to happen, such as a vote or a screening, before they can. The exact opposite is the case here. De facto, people can join, and it takes something special to happen for them not to.




OT: "clique" means a small, exclusive group. Unfortunately, although the use of the word was indeed clear, simple and straightforward there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the two adjectives you inherently applied within the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated, and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bare.

_________________
Image
Screenshot from the upcoming ROTK: EEE. PJ, I love ya and all you've done to put us Tolkien geeks into the mainstream, but this crosses a line.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 9:27 pm 

Joined: Tue 19 Jul , 2005 12:56 am
Posts: 176
Location: Twilight Shadows
:rofl: Sounds like you're typing from a dictionary there.
I am perfectly aware what this whole issue and discussion is about, and why it has come about. I wish you well on working the charter in a democratic way as to fairly create your list of undesirables. This will be interesting indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 10:00 pm 

Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Posts: 5134
Quote:
So why not call it what it is... a private club. Adding any sort of veto by current members over prospective members is exactly that, and any number of ways of shading it doesn't change that. I applaude Tinsel the Elf for calling it and Tolkienpurist for his honesty.


In essence I agree with this statement. That does not mean it is a bad thing. I continue to believe that ToE requires a different set of rules then board77 in general and that the best solution for everyone would be to separate the two.

Snowdog, I appreciate you weighing in on this issue. Just for the record, Tolkienpurist is a woman.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 10:12 pm 

Joined: Tue 19 Jul , 2005 12:56 am
Posts: 176
Location: Twilight Shadows
Quote:
Tolkienpurist is a woman
My apologies. I usually say 'their' when gender is unknown.

I don't think private clubs are a bad thing either.
As for the rules issue though, I have to agree with you Voronwë.
I think Cerin captured the essence of this conundrum a page or so ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 23 Sep , 2005 10:45 pm 
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Posts: 7849
Location: Ireland
The threads have been moved.

_________________
Image
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 12:51 am 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Thanks, Alatar.

Wilma, it just occurred to me that you were referring to those poll threads in Turf and Symposium when you were speaking of them being misleading (at first I thought you were referring to the poll options on the Draft Ballot). Those poll threads have been moved out of everyone's way now, and I don't think you need worry about them anymore.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 4:49 am 
Insolent Pup
User avatar

Joined: Wed 09 Mar , 2005 8:31 pm
Posts: 5381
Location: Many Places
I would like to echo Holby and say... no more polls on how the membership feels about a particular issue. That was just ridiculous. It may have been done with the best of intentions, but obviously that doesn't ensure it will meet with the best of receptions.

As for this whole issue, I think I'm just going to wait and vote and not chime in here anymore. There are a few things that have irritated me, so my best recourse is to use my power of the vote.

:cheers:

_________________
The 11/3 Project


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 5:02 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
Posts: 14166
Useless observations from a lone poster:
Today has shown to me what I've felt for a good while - ToE causes more problems than it's worth. It's sooooo not worth all this energy and frustration and bickering and anger and whatnot. People have been getting pissed about this whole thing all over the place and I just can't see anymore that it's worth any of this at all. Not at all. After today, my vote is to kill the damn forum. Anything important anybody's gotta say can just as easily be said in Member's Lounge without all the ridiculous stigma that comes attached to being "the sex forum".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 6:29 am 
A green apple painted red
User avatar

Joined: Thu 17 Mar , 2005 9:11 pm
Posts: 3336
Location: Out on the banks
I have diligently stayed out of this discussion, but it's a Catch-22. If the non-ToE (hoofed? :Q ) members stay out of the ToEd discussion, they are disinterested and apathetic. If they do get involved, they are deciding the fate of something that doesn't concern them.

I'm curious, though. Snowdog just said that he is not going to apply for ToE membership. Does that change the situation for anyone?

_________________
GNU Terry Pratchett


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 10:25 am 
Takoyaki is love
User avatar

Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 2994
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
Actually it was discussed earlier that no, it dosen't actually for future cases.

Um Tinsel I understand that you think the forum will be OK but... well I would like to find out the stats on how many post there versus who has access. Also, I would not even have really participated if other people were not willing to be a little honest. It's kind of leading by example.

Snowdog I am sorry for saying your name that was wrong of me. I usually do not like the naming of names and avoid it. In fact I think I even apologized for mentioning your name. Sometimes I say things in such a roundabout way that people almost demand I say a name, since they are getting so frustrated with me. (In the past.) I think from now on in all cases of contention like this, names should be left out. Usualy there are but some people like to be very specific. I will now go back and edit out any names and if anyone else thinks so too, they should go ahead.

_________________
Itoshiki Sensei from Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei. Avatar by: sparklessence

"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world, only hitsuzen." - Yuko Ichihara and Kimihiro Watanuki - xxxHolic

"I'm modest, I'll keep my knickers on and die!" - My sister Grace commenting on Bear Gryllis on an episode of Oprah :rofl:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 10:33 am 
Takoyaki is love
User avatar

Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 2994
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
Um Tinsel on further thought if you learned of a bad situation or experience or went through one ourself wouldn't you try and prevent that situation from happening again with another person? Or would you rather the poor soul learn the hard way and suffer like you did? That is why we are trying to have a screening. If the forum flourishes (without the originals), what happenes if a disater occurs among the newbies? A disater that was forseen by the oldbies? Wouldn't that be pretty irresponsible of the oldies to try not to prevent it?

I never like being the one saying 'I told you so'. In RL I have tried to help friends and sisters avoid disasters. They don't listen to me, then the disaster happens and then they say 'Why didn't you warn me', when they knew full well I did and upon further reflection realize they were in error by being stubborn. It is not fun watching your friends and siblings suffer. Especially when you know you could have prevented it.

_________________
Itoshiki Sensei from Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei. Avatar by: sparklessence

"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world, only hitsuzen." - Yuko Ichihara and Kimihiro Watanuki - xxxHolic

"I'm modest, I'll keep my knickers on and die!" - My sister Grace commenting on Bear Gryllis on an episode of Oprah :rofl:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 11:38 am 
Takoyaki is love
User avatar

Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 2994
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
My post on my stance and feelings on deleting posts.

I have witnessed a small amount of it already on this board in the past. (When the board was closed) It really is not good. That is why I am usually very very very very very against deleting posts. Even if 2 or 3 people do it in ToE really does hurt the forum. The acting number of posters in ToE are extremely small.

I came to this board when quite a bit was deleted and well, you really feel apart from the older board mebership.
It leads to a great deal of frustration and the inclination that the poster trying to follow the conversation does not matter. I know I felt that way reading edited posts. Imagine knowing entire threads were deleted!! I never will even know about the subject of those.

I am very concerned that people will come to the forum of mostly deletions and edits and feel hurt that they are not trusted. It can really really really really divide the board. I was never really that open on how I felt about all that stuff that was deleted before I came here, but I felt hurt. That everyone had some inside information that I didn't.

Although I had access when the board was closed, I most certainly did not feel like a full member of Board 77 (at times). Fullness or validity of membership is just not about having access to all the forums.

I am not too sure but were you here when the board was closed? How would you feel if the 30 threads that weren't deleted were deleted? (The historical threads) Notice I was all for deleting them? I kind of felt if everyone else gets to hide their thoughts and feelings on certain things before I came here, why aren't I allowed to have that? (I didn't say so at the time but in that discussion I felt like a second class citizen, people saying we shouldn't delete yet before I came here stuff that they had participated in was deleted. I am over that now though). That is why in a couple of threads you will see some of my posts are umm..... 'edited'. I am sure if you find some of my old posts you will wonder what did I say to elicit such responses? I guess you will never know now will you? Trust me is not good feeling (at least to me).

I remember a few people from TORC who came here thinking the 30 threads were deleted and they were extremely ticked off. It took a lot of work on my part and a lot of other peoples parts to calm down their many assumptions. It involved quite a bit of arguing and hurt feelings. I can only imagine what would have happened if we did delete them. So it may not seem like much of a loss right now but deleting really can hurt the board. I know IdylleSeethes had a thread on it but I didn't follow it much. I even mentioned several of my feelings on deleting while I was on TORC too.

A new uh entity may rise but there will always be that level of distrust with the doors wide open. I will say here I participate in the girls night thread in ToE, not the one in Members. So I doubt a public version of ToE will work. Even if it has a 'veto amendment' to give the 'appearance' of protection, with rules that make it nearly impossible to keep someone out, the effect is the same. The forum is totally 100% public (rather then the 90% public while it's in the current version of ToE). With the membership now it is next to impossible to have totally public discussion on personal stuff like that. Especially since some of us have met each other in person we are not anonymous to each other (also, many non board people from the other place know us). The forum will definitely lose a lot of it's uh.. usefullness. ;) If the amendment isn't actually functionable, then I think the subject matter will get further and further away from intimate feelings on intimate stuff, to more general discussion like in Symposium. Why waste the bandwidth for 2 similar forums?

Oh and Cerin thank you for realizing I meant the poll questions in turf. :)

I never ever meant group refusal of admittance. I was trying to give a general example of what I felt about people being admitted. As If 30 individual people wanted acces to ToE and I lookead at every single individual person requesting access. I truly feel I would have no problem with having all 30 individual people being admitted. I would not look at each and every single request for access and look for ways to come up with a valid objection for each one. I am not that type of person. Heck, even people who hate my guts can take a peek. For me it's about malicious harm.

Still I am back to my question at the begining Cerin, with a few people looking at objections. Too much power is in the hands of too few people. With only one or 2 rangers looking looking at the objections it is only those 2 who can really determine the validity. With that, those 2 people will be the ones really determining who has access to the forums. That is why I suggest detailed objections in private and a more cleaned up anonymous, sanitized version presented to ToE posters with a Ranger working as a filter rather then a judge or controller. EX : detailed explanation: Person X emailed me nasty hate mail (with pictures) on a regular basis as a form of harrasement, and that is why I do not want him in ToE, for fear of people being sexually harrassed on line. Objecting poster could provide evidence of past emails (Not necersary though). Ranger filter: One poster has concerns of online harrasment from this person. (If needed they could add: proof has been provided). That is all the rest of ToE posters would need to know concerning th objection. Now imagine if the ranger had 5 differnt objections. They could list them paraphrased like that. If anyone made false objections then there should be a severe penalty. If though they have some intuitive bad feeling, I think they should send it to a ranger anyway. With a ranger filter they have no fear of feeling intimadated or judged, and the ranger can just a say: A ToEer has an intuitive bad feeling. That way it is up to the whole ToE community to decide validity of those type of objection rather then just 2 peeple.

The ToE posters could base a vote on the paraphrased stuff, since that is all they really need to know. Also, I want to say to the genral people starting to follow this conversation, that this whole ammendment only gets inacted if there are any objections. These are not the rules for everyone getting into ToE. For most people it should be request access, wait ten days and you are in. You do not have to worry about fears of yourself being discussed, because 99% you wouldn't even be discussed. The ten days are just a formality.

Also, I would like to say that ToE posters (some of them at least) and are very open and would like ToE to be able to be accessed by some people who are not able to access ToE right now. So right now it will look like we want to be a closed private club, but in the future you will see another disussion and some may think we are being too open. Maybe then you get a better picture of ToE through that, and realize this discussion is truly about protection from malicious harm. But that discussion is for a later time.

EDIT. I apologize for much of my absence. I have tried to keep up with the conversation but school and a friend uh... issue has been keeping most of my time. I will be away from the computer for most of Saturday. (For the friend issue please see my second last post in my school thread. I really do not want to discuss it on a message board. But IM or email is OK. In fact it would make me feel better. :().

_________________
Itoshiki Sensei from Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei. Avatar by: sparklessence

"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world, only hitsuzen." - Yuko Ichihara and Kimihiro Watanuki - xxxHolic

"I'm modest, I'll keep my knickers on and die!" - My sister Grace commenting on Bear Gryllis on an episode of Oprah :rofl:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 12:15 pm 
Takoyaki is love
User avatar

Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 2994
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
Also, since I am on a roll and I won't be able to post after this, Also, if the ranger gets a complaint such as: I argued with person X in Symposium. The ranger can say: A poster had an online argument with the applicant.

Everyone can figure the validity of that on their own. For me that would not be enough to keep a person out of ToE. Actually I have learned if you don't export disagreements to other parts of the board, people can actually become friends. (Oh!!! Lookee an actual quadrapost!!!!!! *giggle*)

_________________
Itoshiki Sensei from Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei. Avatar by: sparklessence

"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world, only hitsuzen." - Yuko Ichihara and Kimihiro Watanuki - xxxHolic

"I'm modest, I'll keep my knickers on and die!" - My sister Grace commenting on Bear Gryllis on an episode of Oprah :rofl:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 12:29 pm 
Seeking my nitid muliebrity
User avatar

Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 4:15 pm
Posts: 3573
Frelga wrote:
I have diligently stayed out of this discussion, but it's a Catch-22. If the non-ToE (hoofed? :Q ) members stay out of the ToEd discussion, they are disinterested and apathetic. If they do get involved, they are deciding the fate of something that doesn't concern them.



:clap:


Well put, Frelga.


As per usual.


:)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 1:18 pm 
Takoyaki is love
User avatar

Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 2994
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
Well I understand where the non-Toers are coming from. I said somewhere that initally I was never interested in having access to ToE. It was only until the original discussion concerning access, did I request permission (during the constitution). At the time I had simlar concerns for ToE basically becoming public by people who have no access, and people being put in harms way. At the time I said that I had no access to ToE. To have more validity in my arguments I asked for permission to ToE.

Considering that, I was thinking, what about penalties for ToEers who abuse the veto system? Lets say a poster is sending in objections to every poster who requests access. I would consider this abuse.

How about if 50% of applicants over 1 year (or 8 months) get the amendment used on them (regardless of whether they are voted in or out), then some kind of penalty must be issued. Since to me 50% is an abuse of the amendment. The amendment should only used in rare cases. Like to me at most 20% and that is that is alot. Also, a penalty for manufacturing a false objection to keep a person out? It should be serious since that is basically perjury or something. How would non-ToEers feel about that? That way non-ToErs would not feel ToEers were reckless and using the amendment as a veiled invite system.

I think the amount of time to consider abuse of an amendment enough time (1 year), since also we have the additional protection of 100 posts and 3 months. There will be no rash of people from Nambla or something requesting access to ToE or something since there is that 3 month 100 post investment in the board community. So there is no need to veto as much as 50%. Also, I am pretty sure there will be more then 2 people requesting access to ToE a year.

Also when it its listed in the constitution, there should be much made of abuse of the sytem. I really think somehwere it should be stated that the amendment should not be used lightly, and only be used if you beleive maliciuos or intentional harm will come to posters in ToE. Not liking a person is not a belief that they will commit malicious or intentional harm.

Also, after the rules of the amendment are stated, then the penalties for abuse should be listed. that way a reader enters the amendment with the state of mind it should not be used lightly and they leave reading the amendment that they will get in big trouble if they do.

As you can see I am really trying here. Non-ToEers, what do you think?

_________________
Itoshiki Sensei from Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei. Avatar by: sparklessence

"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world, only hitsuzen." - Yuko Ichihara and Kimihiro Watanuki - xxxHolic

"I'm modest, I'll keep my knickers on and die!" - My sister Grace commenting on Bear Gryllis on an episode of Oprah :rofl:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 1:37 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Wilma--
I believe that vetoing every petitioner, or even a preponderence, if there were a discernable trend to it, would probably fall under the harrasment clause in the Charter.

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 1:55 pm 
Takoyaki is love
User avatar

Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 2994
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
OK. As you can see I am not familiar with the charter that much and the impression I get from Non-Toers is that they are concerned that all or most will get the amendment used on them. What would be considered excessive use but not harrassment? Since that is what the non-Toers are thinking about. Anyway I keep trying to make it clear that this amendment thing is a rare occurance and everyone thinks it will be used excessively. If excessive use already covered in the charter, I do not see what the worry is of Non-ToErs (other then the public objection thing which I have tried to find a compromise on). It can't become a veiled invite system since the charter prevents it. I feel like we are in a circular argument here.

I hope some things are kind of cleared up in ramblings and some Non-ToEers worries can be aleviated.

_________________
Itoshiki Sensei from Sayonara Zetsubou Sensei. Avatar by: sparklessence

"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world, only hitsuzen." - Yuko Ichihara and Kimihiro Watanuki - xxxHolic

"I'm modest, I'll keep my knickers on and die!" - My sister Grace commenting on Bear Gryllis on an episode of Oprah :rofl:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 3:39 pm 
Thanks to Holby

Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 2039
Wilma wrote:
With only one or 2 rangers looking looking at the objections it is only those 2 who can really determine the validity.

The Rangers won't determine validity between different objections that fall within the guidelines; they will just check to make sure that objections do relate to the guidelines rather than being something totally unrelated to conduct, like, 'because he has facial hair'. Beyond that, no one is going to be making judgments about why members object.


Quote:
With that, those 2 people will be the ones really determining who has access to the forums.

I think you are imagining more of a value type of judgment than it will be. People's reasons for objecting to someone will not be judged beyond verifying that the reasons relate in some way to the way that person has behaved.


Quote:
EX : detailed explanation: Person X emailed me nasty hate mail (with pictures) on a regular basis as a form of harrasement, and that is why I do not want him in ToE, for fear of people being sexually harrassed on line. Objecting poster could provide evidence of past emails (Not necersary though). Ranger filter: One poster has concerns of online harrasment from this person. (If needed they could add: proof has been provided). That is all the rest of ToE posters would need to know concerning th objection. Now imagine if the ranger had 5 differnt objections. They could list them paraphrased like that. If anyone made false objections then there should be a severe penalty. If though they have some intuitive bad feeling, I think they should send it to a ranger anyway. With a ranger filter they have no fear of feeling intimadated or judged, and the ranger can just a say: A ToEer has an intuitive bad feeling. That way it is up to the whole ToE community to decide validity of those type of objection rather then just 2 peeple.

Wilma, thanks for taking the time to explain this idea in more detail.

What I understand you to be suggesting is this:

People who object would send emails to the Rangers explaining their objections. The Rangers would post a 'sanitized' version of the objection in the forum. At the end of the objection period, the forum would have a poll recording the number of ToE members who do not want the petitioner in the forum, based on the objections reported by the Ranger.

Is this correct?

I'll present this idea in committee, Wilma. Meanwhile, please let me know if I have understood the basic plan correctly.

Regarding having penalties for abuse, that just sets up the need for another procedure for evaluating abuse. That's the reason for having a system that can't be abused, namely, having everyone who objects give the reason, and having denial of access be based on that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat 24 Sep , 2005 7:09 pm 
Not so deep as a well

Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Posts: 7358
Location: In your wildest dreams
Wilma--

Thanks for clearing up what you meant. We all get a little obtuse sometimes. :)

_________________
Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 393 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group