Chat room - listen up, please

[Rich Z]

I'm really not looking for a response, I just want the reasons for my actions to be clear so words aren't put in my mouth and people don't assume what I'm thinking.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Really folks, I do wish those last two posts had washed off the words that they tried to stick into MY mouth.........

 

[hana]

Really folks, I do wish those last two posts had washed off the words that they tried to stick into MY mouth.........

I don't know about you, but I find it hard to put words in someone's mouth that they've already spit out.



hana

 

[carol]

Well as I said before, it's my perception and nothing more.

The two main scenarios we could have on the table are:

1. You put faith that 25 random people can handle trolls night after night in a responsible manner with out anything ugly popping up.

2. You put faith that there just may be 15 responsible people on this site that would be excellent moderators for two evenings a month. People capable of being mature, following set guidelines, and willing to vow to be non-bias during the session.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on which one to put our money on. I'm sorry if I'm reading too much into where you've put your faith.

 

[Roy Munson]

Whoa- whoah- whoah. C'mon folks, emotions are running high here, and there are obviously some scraped nerves, and I think that this thing is becoming magnified to something much larger than it really is. Rich is no demon, and I don't think he views us as a bunch of malicious clods either.

I did some post searching for the search terms "thanks rich", and it was kind of sad to compare some of those threads to this one. There was one post of Rich's in particular that I wanted to find, and I finally did. It's from March 2006:

Heck, you all make this site, not me. I'm just the caretaker. I could fall off the face of the earth and you all would still be here. Well, as long as the server's bills get paid, anyway.

Thanks everyone. I'm certainly glad you enjoy being here.

There were plenty of other threads and posts with this theme too: people thanking Rich, and Rich thanking them in return. Have things really fallen so far since March?

This thread continues to be more and more destructive, despite the fact that I believe that both "sides" may have already won. Rich wanted chat to be more civil, and I bet it will be. Many members wanted something to be done about the trolls, and I'll bet that Rich will take future complaints more seriously. Win, win.

(Of course, I feel personally injured, so I demand reparations. A homo "Z" pair will do... :grin01: )

 

[El Jefe]

(Of course, I feel personally injured, so I demand reparations. A homo "Z" pair will do... :grin01: )

I, too, would like one...I have had to read all of this so that entitles me to winnings....right? Kind of like second hand smokers suing Big Tobacco? :sidestep:

 

[carol]

There were plenty of other threads and posts with this theme too: people thanking Rich, and Rich thanking them in return. Have things really fallen so far since March?

In all honesty, I am very thankful I was allowed to express my perspective and get frustrations off my chest. Give credit where credit is due, so sincerely, thanks to Rich for that.

 

[Rich Z]

Well as I said before, it's my perception and nothing more.

The two main scenarios we could have on the table are:

1. You put faith that 25 random people can handle trolls night after night in a responsible manner with out anything ugly popping up.

Yes, I think it can be done without THIS sort of result:

Joe_Jo entered the room.
stephen_CS: butthead
CornCrazy_CS: LOL
Serpwidgets_CS: I think that is one of those snakes that will later "prove" that you can cross hypo X hypo and get non-hypos.
Joe_Jo: does n e one know n e thing about tortoises
CornCrazy_CS: You honestly do not think it is a hypo?
Serpwidgets_CS: With those borders, I really doubt it.
stephen_CS: butt....
CornCrazy_CS: but look at the color of the borders...the melanin is reduced.
Serpwidgets_CS: LOL Stephen.
stephen_CS: heh
Joe_Jo: does n e one know n e thing about tortoises
Serpwidgets_CS: Dude
hana_CS: This is CORN SNAKE chat
CARattler40_CS: Just ignore it
CARattler40_CS: It'll go away.
Serpwidgets_CS: LOL
CornCrazy_CS: Ummm...does this look like a tortoise room?
terrysangel79_CS: they got shells i think lol
CornCrazy_CS: we are discussing corn snakes...
CornCrazy_CS: LOL
CARattler40_CS: They swim.
breedingcolors_CS: Here are the babies from the first clutch, the second clutch I got 2 amels, 4 normals and this one
breedingcolors_CS: http://www.breedingcolors.com/english/pairing01.html
Joejr14_CS: dis is da cron sankie chat room
Joejr14_CS: gtfo
Weebonilass_CS: <--- checking snakie for hard shell............ nope, no travel trailer
jazzgeek_CS: I know some thing about tortoises.
stephen_CS: they dont swim Carlos
CornCrazy_CS: Their lungs are positioned in a weird place.
CARattler40_CS: SHHH
jazzgeek_CS: and that thing is "Tortoises are not corn snakes".
Joe_Jo: U GUYS ARE ASS HOLES. NO ONE ELSE IS ON AND I HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION. U GUYS DONT GIVE N E ONE A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS. UR %&*!ING RETARDS WHO THINK UR SO COOL WITH UR _CS AT THE END OF YOUR NAMES.
Joejr14_CS: GTFO
breedingcolors_CS: LMAO
Joe_Jo: IT STANDS FOR COCK SUCKERS
Candy_Cane1_CS: GTFO.
Joejr14_CS: You stand for BANNED
Joe_Jo: U !@#$ING PIECES OF %&*!
Serpwidgets_CS: Buhbye
Joe_Jo: ALL OF U R
hana_CS: lol
Joe_Jo: FAGGOTS
Joe_Jo: GAY
Joejr14_CS: and you will be banned
Joe_Jo: SUCK DICK
Joejr14_CS: goodbye!
Serpwidgets_CS: LMAFO
Joe_Jo: LICK ASS HOLE
stephen_CS: n e n e no no e n ting?
Candy_Cane1_CS: I am and only said GTFO.
Joejr14_CS: Don't make me call Rich, Joe_Jo
Joe_Jo: AND HAVE NO RESPECT CUZ U ALL HAVE EACHOTHERS THUMB UP EVERYONE ELSES ASS HOLE
jazzgeek_CS: Welcome to Cornsnake Chat, Oh Childish Twerp With Tourette's.
Serpwidgets_CS: You are a jerk because you couldn't answer Caroline's question.
Joe_Jo: CALL HIM I DONT GIVE A !@#$
Joe_Jo: &*!@ ALL OF U
CornCrazy_CS: LOL@Chuck!
hana_CS: wow.. looks like we've got a live one..
jazzgeek_CS: Joe_Jo, what time is it where you live?
Joe_Jo: LIVE DICK FOR UR MOUTH
stephen_CS: haha
Joe_Jo: PEACE OUT U $%&*ING DICKS
Candy_Cane1_CS: I'd like to know so i can go shoot him in the face
Serpwidgets_CS: Wow, puberty sucks
jazzgeek_CS: ROFLMAO
Joe_Jo has left the room.

THAT is what this thread is all about. That this sort of behavior, regardless of the catalyst, will cease on this site.

2. You put faith that there just may be 15 responsible people on this site that would be excellent moderators for two evenings a month. People capable of being mature, following set guidelines, and willing to vow to be non-bias during the session.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on which one to put our money on. I'm sorry if I'm reading too much into where you've put your faith.

OK, pick five (5) people from the above chat log transcript who you would feel comfortable being mods in the chat room. Obviously this is a cross section of members most active (probably past tense) in the chat room.

 

[Roy Munson]

In all honesty, I am very thankful I was allowed to express my perspective and get frustrations off my chest. Give credit where credit is due, so sincerely, thanks to Rich for that.

I don't think this thread was all bad either. I didn't see your last post before I made my last one. I agree with your last post 100%. Seems very reasonable. My post was in response to some meanness I was seeing develop (e.g. laughing emoticons, terse rebuttals) before your last post.

 

[hana]

THAT is what this thread is all about. That this sort of behavior, regardless of the catalyst, will cease on this site.

What sort of catalyst would warrant this sort of response?

Gintha_CS: Nope, thinking about reporting you for abusing that little primate in your avatar... poor little thing, forced to live like that.

Wilder_CS: Hey, Shiv don't deserve that.

CARattler40_CS: scottsquatch_CS: You're not an idiot, you're just special.

Shiv_CS: Oh, I can be an idiot if I really want to be.

Shiv_CS: Hey! *fwaps Wilder* ...Did that mean what I think it meant?

scottsquatch_CS: CARattler40_CS: short bus speshul?

Wilder_CS: I'm going to rupture an organ, I think.

hana_CS: oh, alright.. considering I have a licence for him, I'm sure it would do you so much good.

Wilder_CS: Man, this is definitely a log to save for Misty.

Gintha_CS: GP doesn't care about liscences.

Shiv_CS hands Wilder a spare spleen.

CARattler40_CS: SRSLY, E.

hana_CS: tell ya what Gintha, if you can tell me what kind of primate it is, I'll give you a dollar.. maybe..

scottsquatch_CS: Gintha_CS: GP="gorilla police"?

Gintha_CS: Just bashing your head in with a 2 X 4 =P

The simple fact that she lied about the size (and probably breed) of her horse and couldn't stand it when I looked up the information to prove her wrong. When does proving something to be a lie deserve a death threat? I mean, let's face it, my skull isn't made of iron, it would break.

Unattended? I banned anyone who was brought to my attention as being an obvious troll. In some instances, I did not agree with the person reporting the alleged troll, so no, nothing was done. I asked Connie Hurley to be the moderator of the chat to help keep things in line. There are others I guess I COULD have made into moderators there, but quite honestly, from what I observed, that would have made things WORSE, not better.

Yes, I banned people reported to me that were shown to be a problem. Yes, I had a moderator in the chat system. And NO, I didn't automatically side with everyone who reported someone else. And NO, I don't believe the CRAP I saw from members on this site and the way they were behaving was appropriate nor welcome.

I suppose those were the two points of reasoning you chose when you decided to not even email me back acknowledging my report. Could these comments be considered childish?





And while I'm at it...

Regardless, BOTH sides are in the wrong. That's why I threw this warning flag on the field. And apparently, one team just got in a huff and walked off the field because of it.

Do not attempt to lump me in on this. On any given night the chat is so sharp with sarcasm you could lose a finger on it. Any thinking human would only have to silently hang out for a moment or two in there to realize this. I'm not sure why that should change for a few people here and there.

As Shakespeare once said,"Men's eyes were made to look so let them gaze. I'll not budge for no man's pleasure." By that I'm saying I'll not change my personality for you or anyone. You might hold the keys to this site, but you are in no way my superior as you seem to think you are, not only in my case, but in this entire thread. If you happen to think you are, then please do recount for us how many days in a row you have gone without one cross word or action to someone. Are your hands that clean?







hana

 

[Rich Z]

The simple fact that she lied about the size (and probably breed) of her horse and couldn't stand it when I looked up the information to prove her wrong. When does proving something to be a lie deserve a death threat? I mean, let's face it, my skull isn't made of iron, it would break.
I suppose those were the two points of reasoning you chose when you decided to not even email me back acknowledging my report. Could these comments be considered childish?

Well quite honestly, some reports just appeared so petty and inconsequential that I didn't see any need to get in the middle of them. I don't always agree with the person reporting the post, as in some cases it is simply a case of someone getting their dander up over what someone else says and wants to use me as the bludgeon against them. Sorry, I am not going to play that game with people.

In the case of the chat log snippet you sent, I could see no one acting as an obvious troll, nor someone who appeared to be particularly a problem. So I felt no action was needed on my part, and I certainly am not required to report my decisions to anyone.

Some people can handle the banter that takes place in the chat better than others can. The typed word leaves a lot to be desired in such things, where body language, tonal inflections, and facial expressions can make things seem not as harsh as they appear in print. Yes, it is a judgement call on my part, but I try to take all of those into account.

As for this quote:

You might hold the keys to this site, but you are in no way my superior as you seem to think you are, not only in my case, but in this entire thread. If you happen to think you are, then please do recount for us how many days in a row you have gone without one cross word or action to someone. Are your hands that clean?

I'm not making any effort to prove any superiority. Never felt the need to do that, for some reason. But I do have the right to say what will be acceptable on this site and what will not. And THAT is what this thread is all about, whether you agree or not.

 

[CMLReptiles]

Well quite honestly, some reports just appeared so petty and inconsequential that I didn't see any need to get in the middle of them. I don't always agree with the person reporting the post, as in some cases it is simply a case of someone getting their dander up over what someone else says and wants to use me as the bludgeon against them. Sorry, I am not going to play that game with people.

In the case of the chat log snippet you sent, I could see no one acting as an obvious troll, nor someone who appeared to be particularly a problem. So I felt no action was needed on my part, and I certainly am not required to report my decisions to anyone.

Um, Rich....

Gintha_CS: Just bashing your head in with a 2 X 4 =P

That's not a problem? Taking action against that is "playing games with people"?

I'm pretty sure 9 out of 10 people take death threats a lot more seriously than a "GTFO" from a chat room. But no, you're right...Joe saying "dis is da cron sankie chat room gtfo" was FAR worse than somebody telling Hana they were gonna bash her head in with a 2 x 4

 

[~slither~]

I've only read little snippets of this thread here and there, and tbvh that was enough. Can't EVERYONE just say, 'I think this has gone on long enough, lets act like adults and drop it'.
I think the answer is simple, if you want to use chat, use it, if not then don't. Let Rich decide if it's being used enough and if not let him hand it over to whatever this other site is.
Seems simple enough to me, and I'm sure there's people reading this and thinking, 'what the hells it got to do with him?', well in short, nothing. I just thought I would point out the obvious.
I didn't think such a helpfull, welcoming, and mostly close-knit community would or could let a thing like this disrupt the site, and in some cases be a tar on some people's reputations. Just my 02.

 

[CMLReptiles]

I've only read little snippets of this thread here and there, and tbvh that was enough. Can't EVERYONE just say, 'I think this has gone on long enough, lets act like adults and drop it'.
I think the answer is simple, if you want to use chat, use it, if not then don't. Let Rich decide if it's being used enough and if not let him hand it over to whatever this other site is.
Seems simple enough to me, and I'm sure there's people reading this and thinking, 'what the hells it got to do with him?', well in short, nothing. I just thought I would point out the obvious.
I didn't think such a helpfull, welcoming, and mostly close-knit community would or could let a thing like this disrupt the site, and in some cases be a tar on some people's reputations. Just my 02.

That's been said many times in this thread, several times by me, and a couple others have said it multiple times. Problem is, this is no longer about the site itself. Apparently Rich and some members have some personal problems between them and this is their "venting zone"...best reason for the continuing of the thread I can see anyway
:shrugs:

 

[diamondlil]

To me the snippet above doesn't say 'I'm going to bash your head in', it says 'I'm just bashing your head in', ie it was a reference to an imaginary action.
I remember reading a thread a while back when a member was threatened, and their reply was along the lines of 'oooh, you're going to TYPE at me'! Just a perhaps not totally relevent point here, but surely hana couldn't have truly taken what Gintha said as a death threat, it was an argument in cyberspace, not in real life with the real possibility of physical escalation?

 

[CMLReptiles]

To me the snippet above doesn't say 'I'm going to bash your head in', it says 'I'm just bashing your head in', ie it was a reference to an imaginary action.
I remember reading a thread a while back when a member was threatened, and their reply was along the lines of 'oooh, you're going to TYPE at me'! Just a perhaps not totally relevent point here, but surely hana couldn't have truly taken what Gintha said as a death threat, it was an argument in cyberspace, not in real life with the real possibility of physical escalation?

That may be, but does it really excuse the actions? All that mattered in the original chat snipper in question was what was actually said, not what brought it on or what was implied, so why now should the implied meaning be what's considered and now simply what was said? Seems to me there's more than just a double standard, and the most convenient one is what's used

 

[hana]

Oh sorry, my mistake..

Well quite honestly, some reports just appeared so petty and inconsequential that I didn't see any need to get in the middle of them. I don't always agree with the person reporting the post, as in some cases it is simply a case of someone getting their dander up over what someone else says and wants to use me as the bludgeon against them. Sorry, I am not going to play that game with people.

In the case of the chat log snippet you sent, I could see no one acting as an obvious troll, nor someone who appeared to be particularly a problem. So I felt no action was needed on my part, and I certainly am not required to report my decisions to anyone.

Some people can handle the banter that takes place in the chat better than others can. The typed word leaves a lot to be desired in such things, where body language, tonal inflections, and facial expressions can make things seem not as harsh as they appear in print. Yes, it is a judgement call on my part, but I try to take all of those into account.

I had no clue that I was a petty person, thanks for the insight!
And no, there was no troll, but I never said she was. Perhaps a little thought before you write would come in handy.
When your actions directly effect someone else then yes, you do need to be acountable for your actions.


I can handle chat banter with the best of them, but if that's your argument, then this entire thread is moot, because you have just negated your original point.

I'm not making any effort to prove any superiority. Never felt the need to do that, for some reason. But I do have the right to say what will be acceptable on this site and what will not. And THAT is what this thread is all about, whether you agree or not.

I think a lot of people will get a good giggle out of that last bit, whether you agree or not.

But, I'm done with this thread you rectum faced pygme.


Don't take it too personal, it's just a bit of banter after all..

To me the snippet above doesn't say 'I'm going to bash your head in', it says 'I'm just bashing your head in', ie it was a reference to an imaginary action.
I remember reading a thread a while back when a member was threatened, and their reply was along the lines of 'oooh, you're going to TYPE at me'! Just a perhaps not totally relevent point here, but surely hana couldn't have truly taken what Gintha said as a death threat, it was an argument in cyberspace, not in real life with the real possibility of physical escalation?

Wether I did or not, how does that make it better? The point is, she lied, was found out, and then blew up. Which would you rather hear, 'gtfo' or,'I'm gonna bash your head in'? I think from now on when a newbie comes in asking silly questions I'm going to tell them I'm going to do bodily harm to them. It seems to be acceptable, and a good way to get someone off your case.

 

[Drizzt80]

I think the answer is simple, if you want to use chat, use it, if not then don't. Let Rich decide if it's being used enough and if not let him hand it over to whatever this other site is.

Unfortunately, it's NOT about chat. I originally (mistakenly) thought it was about chat too. Some would have you believe it's not a vindictive attitude towards Rich, but then turn around and say things elsewhere that are different (Talk about two faced and 'holier than thou' PS. If the shoe fits, wear it.).

Here are what I am beginning to perceive as the issues:
1. Rich asked EVERYONE to behave in chat. Some took exception to that.
2. Some feel Rich is cowtowing to the "trolls" while ignoring the CS.com members. Which is still really a chat issue.
3. Some are angry that Rich added increased banner ads to the site and therefore are boycotting the site. Sorry, but I don't boycott a good restuarant because I have to look at advertisements when I pee.
3b. Some feel their $25 contribution should more than cover the revenue from banner ads to cover server maintenance etc.
4. Some feel Rich should be listening to only them because they have a shiny medallion.
5. Some are comparing the CS.com environment to KS.com . . . Show me one instance where Rich has censored anyone's opinion on this site (obviously, words that aren't volatile or offensive).

Petty, childish behavior on both sides of the issue. My initial involvement in this thread was solely defending Rich's assertion that the chat behavior displayed was inappropriate and indefensible. I was unaware these other petty issues had created such a horrendous environment to participate in. It's been stated numerous times to the affect that it's not about 'getting back at Rich', but the words and actions displayed would indicate otherwise.

Too bad, now there's three cornsnake communities developing. With the track record, there will one day be four because someone will become offended and abused at the 'new' place and create their own new place. So be it I guess. The community survived the KS.com to CS.com switch . . . heck, Don and Kathy participate readily at both sites. Unfortunately will they now have to participate in 3 to stay on top of things?! :shrugs:

D80

 

[Drizzt80]

But, I'm done with this thread you rectum faced pygme.

A. You spelled pygmy wrong.
B. You are unfortunately, and sadly, the first person to make this VERY personal. It will be interesting to see who, or if, anyone defends your childish statement. I hear a toilet flushing somewhere . . . I think it holds your integrity.

D80

 

[Mary-Beth]

I was unaware these other petty issues had created such a horrendous environment to participate in. It's been stated numerous times to the affect that it's not about 'getting back at Rich', but the words and actions displayed would indicate otherwise.

I have to ask, who has said that this is a horrendous environment? Some have said that they feel ignored and uncomfortable here, if you don't then good for you. Would you expect someone to hang around here when they feel that way, or go to a place where they're comfortable?

Who is trying to get back at Rich? People who don't want to post on Rich's sites are now getting back at him if they post anywhere else? :shrugs:

Too bad, now there's three cornsnake communities developing. With the track record, there will one day be four because someone will become offended and abused at the 'new' place and create their own new place. So be it I guess. The community survived the KS.com to CS.com switch . . . heck, Don and Kathy participate readily at both sites. Unfortunately will they now have to participate in 3 to stay on top of things?! :shrugs:

D80

Do you think you may be over reacting here?

 

[carol]

Here are what I am beginning to perceive as the issues:
1. Rich asked EVERYONE to behave in chat. Some took exception to that.
2. Some feel Rich is cowtowing to the "trolls" while ignoring the CS.com members. Which is still really a chat issue.
3. Some are angry that Rich added increased banner ads to the site and therefore are boycotting the site. Sorry, but I don't boycott a good restuarant because I have to look at advertisements when I pee.
3b. Some feel their $25 contribution should more than cover the revenue from banner ads to cover server maintenance etc.
4. Some feel Rich should be listening to only them because they have a shiny medallion.
5. Some are comparing the CS.com environment to KS.com . . . Show me one instance where Rich has censored anyone's opinion on this site (obviously, words that aren't volatile or offensive).
D80

Sucked in to clarify....

Well for the record, the only thing I agree with is # 2. Although I can understand Rich's apprehension to listen to some chat users/cornsnake members, I just feel that apprehension has spread to all of us like a big blanket. That may not be true, but it's definitely how I feel I'm being treated. That is what is so disappointing to me. Because of a small group of people acting immature, now there is no possibility of believing there are any members here that have integrity.
When you hint that there is no one on this site capable of being a good mod beside yourself, people will get the idea that you think you are superior. I don't get that idea. I think a few people's actions has you scared to death of trusting people, which on one side sounds reasonable. On the other side I think there are many, many members out there that have proven over years that they are trust worthy and I hate to see them and their work be treated with complete disregard. So it's not about chat, it's about the implications that we are ALL bound to behave in the same way as those who participated in that transcript.
Servers are expensive and this site uses a lot of space. I don't think there is a killing to be made of this site. The money issue just isn't there for me. I feel a lot of the members contributions lie in how long we sat in here answering everyones questions and discussing topics so this would be the place to go for cornsnake learning. Rich donated many hours, but so did a lot of other people. He could not have got this site off the ground trying to reply to posts all on his own. In fact he stated in the beginning his motivation for making this site was to get some of the work load off his back. When people emailed him questions about cornsnakes, he could point them to the friendly forum where there is always someone to take the time Rich didn't have to spend replying.
We were all glad to help, we were having a great time, but obviously none of it moved us up in the respect ladder. It's just not right that a lot of good people that have proved themselves over the years are thought to be more immature than a random group of people. Just because a few of their peers lost their cool. Instead of my thoughts getting acknowledged I just got turned in a circular argument. I guess there is no reason to make sure we stick around, we have years of knowledge in searchable type, so we really are disposable at this point.
So when you've spent years and an untold number of hours with your peers to make a place successful, it's a little rough to take that dozens of you get judged by the behavior of a handful. I'm not spiteful, more like heart broken. I'm not leaving in a huff, I won't stop contributing to the site and I'm not angry, I am frustrated. I'm just having a hard time putting my heart into things here like I used to.
As far as cornsnake communities, you've got the wool over your eyes. Not long ago, the CA people got together for a cornsnake BBQ, and were our own community. Tied together by different places, but not everyone there was a cornsnake.com member. It was a group of people meeting to talk about what they wanted where they wanted. Nothing wrong or spiteful about that. There are WAY more than 3 or 4, I'm sure you could count dozens of little corn communities of people who have become good friends, live close by, have the same morph interest, etc. Going to more than one place does not mean you are betraying one. Katie went and took pics of Mike's snakes without all of us, what an elitist! I hope you shared every pic with everyone here! (Sorry Mike and Katie).
Some of us have become friends here. You can call that a clique. You can say that's being an elitist. Surely there are many people in your town you are friendly with, but not all of them are your close friends, so you are an elitist as well by those standards. If you met a good friend at a restaurant are you bound for life to ONLY go to that restaurant with them? If you said "no" then you are an elitist by your standards. Would it be wrong to invite your friend to "your house" for dinner? There are a lot of people you'd shake hands with and say "Have a great day!", but you only trust a few to bear hug and say "I had a bad day."
I don't agree with a lot of things that have been said by my friends, and I'm sure they don't agree with some of my points either. I'm sure they all think I'm silly right now, not giving up hope that people will see it's not about spite. But contrary to popular belief, they don't dictate my actions. One thing we all agree on is we don't like being judged together, we are independent people. A handful have proven to be capable of getting very nasty, but so many more have proven capable of being fair and working for the better of the site. When that gets thrown out, some of us just need to take a break. In fact some of us should take a break, cause it's getting ugly and it really doesn't help.
I'm no longer interested in getting anyone to change their mind, but Brent it bothers me to see you judge with the same blanket judgement that is the issue. Well it's my issue anyway.