Do you think this might be him trying for the simpattie postz under udder uszernames?

Homebrew sometimes makes bad ideas seem like good ideas.

moved to suggestions and feedback, a more appropriate forum.

Thank you.

It seems like this has been going on for some time and it gets overlooked. I know a certain amount of good natured ribbing is to be expected, but there is nothing good natured about jt512's posts. In general they are mean spirited and condescending, to say the least.

I just got sick of reading them and would like an honest explanation as to why they are tolerated. I know that as a long time lurker my voice has little weight, but I think a good many others fail to post here because of the caustic nature of this particular user. Is being self important enough to get away with abusing fellow members?

...but there is nothing good natured about jt512's posts. In general they are mean spirited and condescending, to say the least.

jt512 is the Dr. House of RC.com. He's an asshole, but he's also generally right.

A small sample of ad hominem attacks and insults lobbed by one particular user.

jt512 is the Dr. House of RC.com. He's an asshole, but he's also generally right.

Thank you.

It seems like this has been going on for some time and it gets overlooked. I know a certain amount of good natured ribbing is to be expected, but there is nothing good natured about jt512's posts. In general they are mean spirited and condescending, to say the least.

I just got sick of reading them and would like an honest explanation as to why they are tolerated. I know that as a long time lurker my voice has little weight, but I think a good many others fail to post here because of the caustic nature of this particular user. Is being self important enough to get away with abusing fellow members?

[image]http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/gallery/2001/07/03/severussnape.jpg[/image]

GO

A small sample of ad hominem attacks and insults lobbed by one particular user.

Thank you.

It seems like this has been going on for some time and it gets overlooked. I know a certain amount of good natured ribbing is to be expected, but there is nothing good natured about jt512's posts. In general they are mean spirited and condescending, to say the least.

I just got sick of reading them and would like an honest explanation as to why they are tolerated. I know that as a long time lurker my voice has little weight, but I think a good many others fail to post here because of the caustic nature of this particular user. Is being self important enough to get away with abusing fellow members?

I wonder why i already did know who this was about before even clicking the first link in this thread?

Personally i dont have any problem with him (maybe i'm already plonked?), and i dont think there is any reason to be overly polite to utter idiots, however i would suggest that Jay readjusts his thresholds for "utter idiot" and "overly polite". sometimes his shouting does indeed get rather distracting.

qwert

I think we have indeed been seeing a kinder, gentler jt over the last 2 months or so. Not too long ago he would have been trolling the shit out of this and other recent threads where he is being openly attacked.

A small sample of ad hominem attacks and insults lobbed by one particular user.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2442512#2442512


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2442041#2442041


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2442331#2442331

personally, i think j needs to dial it up a notch.

usnavy is still here, for instance.

After having actually looked at these, the first few links that you posted, they're innocuous. What's your problem?

jay

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2453845#2453845

After looking at that, what's your problem?

Jay

Yes, after all you did say "please."

Curt

A small sample of ad hominem attacks and insults lobbed by one particular user.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2442512#2442512


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2442041#2442041


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2442331#2442331


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2441563#2441563


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2441597#2441597


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2441373#2441373

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2427524#2427524


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2425049#2425049


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2422628#2422628


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2420018#2420018


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2414921#2414921


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1662878#1662878


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=2406916#2406916


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ost=2449669;#2449669


http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ost=2445171;#2445171

Jay, your latest tirade is yet another episode in your history of hostility towards the moderator and management team, which includes explicit verbal assaults on us on multiple occasions. This despite past warnings, both publicly and in private to you. You are on thin ice, considering that we're currently also dealing with a growing upwelling of frustration from the rest of the community towards you. Your motivation seems to be the misconception that "knowledgeablility about climbing (according to you)" is the ultimate requirement for being a good moderator of a community site, when in fact your own history as a mod of this site has so elegantly proven this fallacy. We as mods are certainly not above criticism, as we've shown over and over again in the past, but your abrasive approach is doing nothing but undermine the entire staff and management team's credibility. You are making our jobs (as volunteers I will add) as unpleasant as it can possibly be. You may think this is "helping" the site, but it is not. You are only perpetuating an environment of hostility for everyone on this site. I suggest you do some serious introspection and start working with us, not against us.

ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

So you, the moderators, whom I'm supposed to "work with," bury an ad hominem attack against me in your trumped up accusation of "episode of...hostility toward the moderator and management team." Classy. I'm undermining you? What a joke.

Jay

ok, after a lot of discussion in the green room, this is what it boils down to. The decision included in this statement is unanimous from ddt phil, and all moderators. Our decision on this particular case pertains to JT510, however, we have also decided that this type of situation will not arise again with any other user. it will be dealt with long before it gets to this point. So, with that, the staff answer to the OP's question is this:

HA! You just got downgraded!

A. This^ is retarded.

B. Jay has gotten, from all sides, as good or better than he has given.

The notion that he is victimizing the knob and it's users is laughable.

C. He may be abrasive but he has also been on the right side of a good number of critiques of this website that have been politely acknowledged and then hastily disregarded by DDT and the Mods.

It's funny how often people perceive being told they are wrong (especially when they are) as an attack or insult.

jt512 is the Dr. House of RC.com. He's an asshole, but he's also generally right.

Actually, that was NOT intended

Now, in defence of Jay,

First, I have never met you face to face, but I do think we would enjoy climbing together if we ever had the opportunity.

In the case of your postings here, I don't agree with most of what you write, but I do enjoy reading it. Sometimes I ask myself if you're just playing the Devil's Advocate or if you really believe every post.

Personally, I've never been offended by the things you write. Some of them have caused me to pause and think a bit, but I don't think I've ever been offended, shocked, or pissed by what anything you've written. About me or others.

over all, you do have a wealth of knowledge, I don't agree with how you apply it or interpret it sometimes, but climbing is personal and everyone can decide how to apply or interpret what they know.

I think a day at a crag with you would be interesting. The banter or conversations we could have would make any climbing area interesting. A lot of climbers I've met lately have been to scared or insecure to speak their mind, I miss having my views, and ideas challenged.

Like you, I have my own, personal and often strong belief, and I think a face to face conversation would be more interesting than exchanges on this site.

One thing I do try to keep in mind when I post, not everyone has a tough skin, especially on this forum. You do, and I think I do, so I don't mind giving you crap and arguing with you. I do think that many climbers I meet today are insecure about climbing, their belief system, and themselves.

While I agree you are aggressive on this site, I am actually one of the ones who would miss reading your post. (I do still wonder who else would)

My two cents,
Eman

So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

A. This^ is retarded.

B. Jay has gotten, from all sides, as good or better than he has given. The notion that he is victimizing the knob and it's users is laughable.

C. He may be abrasive but he has also been on the right side of a good number of critiques of this website that have been politely acknowledged and then hastily disregarded by DDT and the Mods. It's funny how often people perceive being told they are wrong (especially when they are) as an attack or insult.

... scientists or mathemeticians...

What are two groups generly known for their pronounced lack of social skills, condescending behavior and overinflated egos.

Really? That's odd. The scientists and mathematicians I know are the nicest people I've ever met. Just don't try to bullshit them.

Jay

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

remarks like that and most recently,

"The moderators' maturity level?

Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke."

Thanks for this post.

We do seem to disagree on a surprisingly large number of issues. I have to admit that I have taken some of these disagreements personally, but now that I have a better appreciation of where you are coming from, I'll be less prone to do that in the future.

Thanks, again.

My communication style generally is not to sugar coat. I try to plainly state my opinions. IRL, my circle of friends, most of whom are scientists or mathematicians, have learned to do the same thing. Scientists and mathematicians value the truth, and spend much of their time having vigorous debates about it. They're used to being told they're flatly wrong, and are used to telling others that they are flatly wrong. It's nothing personal. Outside of scientific circles, such straight talk is often politically incorrect (literally! since in politics it is incorrect by definition). Many people probably go through most of their lives without being told, without any sugar coating, "No, you are wrong," and so they take it personally on the rare occasion they encounter it.

By those who don't like me, I am often accused of "personally attacking" other users. Although, I can't claim to be entirely innocent of that charge, I maintain that the vast majority of the time that I am perceived as personally attacking someone, I am either just speaking plain truth or I have been provoked into making the insult. Obviously, being insulted is not a valid reason for insulting someone back, but it is at least a reason, and I shouldn't be blamed for these occasions. And, of course, since the majority of the mods have turned against me, users have free reign to attack me at will (which, as notapplicable has noted, above, they do), while I have to walk on eggshells in my responses to their attacks.

I may not have the highest post count on the website, but I suspect I have, by far, the highest post count in the climbing-specific forums (i.e, outside of Community, etc.). I've got over 20 years climbing experience, and nearly 20,000 posts on this website using that experience to debate substantive climbing topics. Those posts are not all flames. They're not mostly flames. They're not even remotely mostly flames. And most of the time that they've been flames, the flamee had it coming, either by first attacking me (usually more than once) or by posting completely idiotic or irresponsible information.

Jay

Jay,
thank you for posting this. It actually does impart some insight into your posts. I don't always disagree when you tell somebody they are wrong, however, I disagree many times with the manner in which you do it and I'm not alone. While I am not a fan of some of your unprovoked attacks against me, I do take offense to the attacks on others. And they do exist. Plain and simple.

I'll offer this olive branch. You say that the mods ignore blatant unprovoked attacks against you while you are held to a higher standard. You soften your posting style and we'll do our part to make sure that fair is fair. I'm not saying you have to sugar coat anything or coddle anybody. What I am saying is that you may debate what is said, but not attack the person saying it. We've all thought "what a fucking idiot" when we read certain posts, the difference is we don't always actually say it! Instead, state why they are wrong. Give examples.That's healthy debate and more than welcome. But I also think you know that you aren't going to sway everybody's opinion to that of your own, which is where you usually tend to get personal.

It's not a secret that you and I don't like each other. Not on the site and not IRL. That's fine. We don't have to. You do your part and I'll do mine. Fairly.

Agreed?

Actually, I thought that that was what j_ung meant, and I was trying to clarify.


Out of context. That was the topic sentence of the paragraph. The next sentence, which you conveniently did not quote, was this: "Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status." So, to be literally true, I should have said "a significant fraction" instead of "half," since I didn't actually calculate the exact proportions. So, with that correction in mind, what part of that sentence can you honestly say is not true?

And, while we're on the subject, climbs4fun, one of the moderators who takes her responsibilities to the users so seriously that she hides her online status from them, is still doing so. Perhaps the others are to; I haven't checked.

Jay

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

There would be a lot less of a grey area if jt would just call a mod a "sanctimonious bitch" again and be done with it. At least the little fellow has learned that lesson.

I think you are being overly sensitive, but okay "total joke" was an exaggeration. As I said in another post, that there are moderators (quite possibly the minority) who are active and do a good job, and I even said that you were in that group.

I would think that it would be obvious why a moderator should not be allowed to (or even want to) hide their online status. When a user needs to get in touch with a moderator, he has to know which moderators are actually online.

Maybe I don't understand why some moderators habitually hide their online status. The impression the practice gives me, though, is that they don't take their responsibility to users seriously enough even to allow users to know when they are available to moderate.

Jay

backpedal

how does hiding status made a moderator a total joke or the moderators that are active a total joke. you can talk around that statement all you want, but it shows a lack of respect for us that volunteer our time. And if you don't respect us, how can we respect you?

I have hidden my status on occasion, it doesn't have any effect on the job i do.

I will say that I have never hidden my online status. Mostly because I have nothing to hide. I will also say that I don't moderate user behavior frequently. This isn't because I don't care or I don't know any better, it's because, I think that for the most part the users self moderate quite well and I believe that adults should know how to behave and how not to. I do get proven wrong on a daily basis in this area, however. I step in when the staff consensus says that something needs to be moderated, I feel something is REALLY out of line, or in this case, I said that I would post the moderator decision because Phil was coordinating flood cleanup in his area. Or in normal cases when something needs to be moved or a spammer dealt with. There are a couple of others that tend to moderate the same way. I hope that this helps to dispel the perception that some of the moderators just don't care.

I've been a moderator around here longer than any of them with the exception of Phil. I've survived the wild west with little to no moderation, heavy handed moderation, and the current level of moderation. I believe that a happy medium tends to be the best policy. But I also see that a more civil environment is what is being requested by a large portion of the user base. This is not solely aimed at Jay, there are plenty that could play a little nicer as a general rule. And they will, or they will go away.

I will say that I have never hidden my online status.

This site needs a new BANZing reign of terror!

Thanks for this post.

We do seem to disagree on a surprisingly large number of issues. I have to admit that I have taken some of these disagreements personally, but now that I have a better appreciation of where you are coming from, I'll be less prone to do that in the future.

Thanks, again.

My communication style generally is not to sugar coat. I try to plainly state my opinions. IRL, my circle of friends, most of whom are scientists or mathematicians, have learned to do the same thing. Scientists and mathematicians value the truth, and spend much of their time having vigorous debates about it. They're used to being told they're flatly wrong, and are used to telling others that they are flatly wrong. It's nothing personal. Outside of scientific circles, such straight talk is often politically incorrect (literally! since in politics it is incorrect by definition). Many people probably go through most of their lives without being told, without any sugar coating, "No, you are wrong," and so they take it personally on the rare occasion they encounter it.

By those who don't like me, I am often accused of "personally attacking" other users. Although, I can't claim to be entirely innocent of that charge, I maintain that the vast majority of the time that I am perceived as personally attacking someone, I am either just speaking plain truth or I have been provoked into making the insult. Obviously, being insulted is not a valid reason for insulting someone back, but it is at least a reason, and I shouldn't be blamed for these occasions. And, of course, since the majority of the mods have turned against me, users have free reign to attack me at will (which, as notapplicable has noted, above, they do), while I have to walk on eggshells in my responses to their attacks.

I may not have the highest post count on the website, but I suspect I have, by far, the highest post count in the climbing-specific forums (i.e, outside of Community, etc.). I've got over 20 years climbing experience, and nearly 20,000 posts on this website using that experience to debate substantive climbing topics. Those posts are not all flames. They're not mostly flames. They're not even remotely mostly flames. And most of the time that they've been flames, the flamee had it coming, either by first attacking me (usually more than once) or by posting completely idiotic or irresponsible information.

Jay

So to be very clear, what we are asking you to do Jay is to bring a little diplomacy into your posts. We are asking as politely as possible. I am not going to debate any of the issues from the past or any of your justifications. We are here at this point in time, it is what it is.

Take it and run with it or see ya later. Can't be plainer than that.

Over to you.

Just so we're clear, just how many warnings does it take to get to the center of this tootsie roll pop? Seriously, most everyone hates the guy (for good reason), he has a long history of abusing other users _AND_ the volunteer staff (which should be compounded by the fact he apparently had been a mod at one point and should know better).... The value of keeping him around is.... ? Seriously, what special knowledge does Jt512 possess that makes him worth keeping around? 99% of his posts are either condescending or attack other users, so where's the value?

My suggestion, before going back into lurk mode, is to institute a high maintenance user policy like lots if other sites are doing and make an example of Jt512. Seriously, he doesn't pull this shit anywhere else, only on RC. Why he gets away with it is beyond me.

I can't argue against any points you have made. Yes, we the mods and management have allowed this situation to develop and exist. We have now drawn a line in the sand and will not tolerate any sort of uncivil behaviour from this day forward. We are way beyond wanting to put up with what we have done so in the past.

I really do not understand the listening to of lurkers.

These are people that have contributed NOTHING to these forums, so they have no right to complain.

What value do you see in participating in flamefests and "what color rope should I get" threads? What little I have to say is better spent on other climbing forums, where not only are the people nicer to one another, but the discussions actually go somewhere.

If it is as bleak as you say, then why do you read anything here at all?

. . . a more civil environment is what is being requested by a large portion of the user base. This is not solely aimed at Jay, there are plenty that could play a little nicer as a general rule. And they will, or they will go away.

That's the problem with the lack of editorial oversight.

The "user base" consists overwhelmingly of n00bs and career incompetents whose primary use of the site is to post bad and frequently dangerous advice to other n00bs and career incompetents on topics in which they have neither understanding nor experience. Since this site also sits on one of the nicer bits of internet real estate, it has earned a high-profile brand (given how small the market niche is), but that brand is for idiocy and incompetence.

At the moment, the only corrective to that sad state of affairs, is the fear that one's anonymous avatar may get publicly ridiculed by Jay or Curt.

Ironically, the BET slums are one of the least ridiculous environments here, largely because they post about nothing but baking, gardening, and pets.

I appreciate the misery of being a mod, but I am not a fan of the idea that policy here should be driven by the libidinal impulses of the loudest sheep. That's not the only model for a successful site.

All good points, but you're pissing into the wind. Perhaps that's admirable from a purely principled position, but surely you must see that the die has already been cast.

I, for one, would rather see JT aim for some kind of compromise and stay her for a long time, than encourage him to go out with guns blazing. The latter might be entertaining for five minutes, but doesn't really serve anyone's interest.

GO

Tilt at windmills to your heart's content.

Not just about jt or this particular incident. This is a long-term problem, partly because the climbing community is so fragmented, partly because we have a growing set of issues coming up with land managers and rc.n00b is, god help us, one of the most public faces of climbing.

Kelly, although you might not have been aware of it, your online status is currently hidden (click to enlarge).

Not just about jt or this particular incident. This is a long-term problem, partly because the climbing community is so fragmented, partly because we have a growing set of issues coming up with land managers and rc.n00b is, god help us, one of the most public faces of climbing.

so yeah, on the increasingly rare occasions that i surf or post here, it's worth pointing out one of the strucutral problems this site (and many others) face.

it's not really about me hating on the mods or even ownership or thinking there's another mid-school dust-up that could be resolved in a happier way.

the transition out of editorial journalism and into the big new wild world, esp. one without a reliable revenue model, isn't getting resolved by anything done to/by j. i expect this basic problem to be with us for years, and not just here at america's least favorite site for pets, baking, and gardening.

1) we were all noobs at one point. Including you.

2) when the site was considered slightly more civil, there were more informed sources willing to post. Many of them owners of gear companies and professional climbers. Most of them have now been run off the site by the "noise". . .. Insults were thrown at the noobs to the point that real questions with real answers don't get asked anymore. . . .

1. Indeed, I, too, was once a n00b. Since I keep trying to work on new stuff, I have to go through it over and over again. There's nothing shameful about being a n00b. But there's nothing uplifting about it, either. The problem isn't that n00bs are asking questions. The problem is that n00bs are also answering those questions. Given anonymity, the general decline of belief in expertise and competence, and the corollary growth of belief that any opinion is as good as another, the mechanisms for separating out ignorant, idiotic and frankly dangerous responses or claims are pretty limited.

All institutions have mechanisms for sorting participants into hierarchies of popularity or experience or competence. Many of those mechanisms are pretty harsh, especially in professional environments. Hazing is one of the common ones, but that's only the beginning. One of the problems with this site, is that it doesn't have any mechanisms, so cutting criticisms of ungrounded or badly warranted claims becomes the default. I'm not saying that's the fault of the moderators, just that it's the case.

Folks are incorrect to claim that Jay's sarcasm and occasional viciousness serve no useful purpose. They do-- they provide a tiny bit of deterrent to the many posters here who press groundless opinions without bothering to acquire the experience or doing the work necessary to justify their claims.


2. I don't believe that the unfriendliness to n00bs has made this site unattractive to many folks of competence and accomplishment. Indeed, many of them have fled over to ST, which is far nastier than this place will ever be. If unfriendliness to n00bs were the problem, ST wouldn't even exist.

Again, the means you have at hand to make the site "friendlier" to posting by n00bs will also make the site friendlier to posting by incompetents and idiots.

I don't have an easy solution to that problem. There are at least two different models-- one is editorial oversight and heavy moderation (a la UKC). The other is virtually no moderation (a la ST). It's probably not an accident, that those two sites are also the ones with the best reputation for attracting a spectrum of knowledgeable and accomplished contributors.

Of course, those two sites also have different revenue models.

You all say you want to learn things, and have useful information shared, but most people are afraid to post real questions and useful information for fear that majid or Jay or somebody else will come along and tell them how stupid they are for not wearing a helmet or not doing a search first. Maybe they should have worn a helmet, and hell yes they should have done a search, but there are better ways to handle these issues.

First of all, I've never told anybody that they were stupid for not wearing a helmet, and I don't think I've ever told anybody they were stupid for not doing a search. I have possibly told someone that they were stupid because they couldn't comprehend why they actually should do a search rather than ask a tired old question anew, but that's not the same thing.

Secondly, I am not one of the people around here who tells n00bs they're stupid or to shut up just because they are n00bs. "Do a search; it's been asked a million times before"? Sure. But I am not one of the people around here who run n00bs through some sort of gauntlet for entertainment. Don't tar me with that brush.

Now, are you claiming that there is a better way to handle a n00b who comes onto the site and asks a question that's been asked over and over again than to inform him that his question is redundant and that he should do a search? If so, I'd like to hear it. In my opinion, not only should he be told to do a search, he should be told by a moderator, just before she locks his thread. This lack of prudent moderation is exactly why ordinary users step in to fill the gap.

But where the mods go wrong is to blame the regular user base for doing what the moderators should be doing. If keeping unwanted redundancy out of the forums is left to the users, then, yeah, it's going to get messy, as it has. If, on the other hand, a mod steps in and locks the thread (and posts a link to the forum rule about not asking a redundant question), it's done. No argument, no flamefest, no butthurt n00b, nobody gets threatened with being banned. The n00b runs off and does his search, and if his question still isn't answered, he comes back and says "I did this search and found out A, B, C, but I still don't understand D. Now, he gets respect from the regular users, because he's shown he's done his homework, thought about the issue, and probably now has an intelligent, and possibly even original, question to ask.

This is the way it works at many other forums, and there is absolutely no question that it results in the informational content of those forums being orders off magnitude higher than it is here, and to the extent that the mods can be vigilant enough, eliminates users scolding n00bs for not doing a search.

Jay

I'm simply saying that there needs to be a solution. The last paragraph of your post provided a good start. But for it to happen, then we need to start recruiting more moderators. Any suggestions for that?

Contrary to popular belief, this site really doesn't make a lot of money. . . . The reality is that we don't have a way of keeping the n00bs from posting dangerous responses. If you look at the list of mods, it's a slim list. There isn't an army of us.

Suggestions for strategies to recruit moderators or for specific individuals?

Jay

Who does everybody think would make good, impartial, diligent moderators? I'm curious.

Although it's tempting to nominate k.l.k and tripperjim, I think vegastradguy would do a good jorb.

Jay

Who does everybody think would make good, impartial, diligent moderators? I'm curious.

Didn't we just go over this, today? I wus elevated to Green Overlord by popular vote. I iz yore gnu greenie. I mean come on, knot many people on this site, with more experience than me and I have a plan. I mean who woodn't want to see sungam and enigma in cages, on teh ft page, with a button ewe can push that wood poke them with a stick? USn00b and Major Sorbet, who's gunna miss them? And who ewe gunna get to deal with those unrully losers in teh BET? Ewe awlready has two greenies in there with several others lurking and those knuckleheds are still a problem.

Thing is, instead of welcoming me with open arms and a little red banz button,... I am censored, without even a courtesy pm or a funny reply. Now, how could I ever trust this site again, after I wus treated this way?