Jomarac5

Just to set the record straight, because it may be a bit difficult to follow what's going on here; CO Admin moved three posts (by RobertM, myself, and Chis&Cindy) to a new thread but as a result, RobertM's post didn't make sense without being referenced to his Nov 26 2003, 09:13 PM post above. If you follow that these posts disappeared from this thread for a while, before CO Admin put them back, this should all make sense. This incident is really a good example of what this thread is all about. *****

They never should have been moved in the first place. If I may offer a suggestion, perhaps you should allow things to play out a little bit before pressing any buttons. *****

Why has RobertM's Nov 26 2003, 09:13 PM post been edited by CO Admin? Moving and deleting posts is not enough? Are we trying to re-write history too? What's up here? *****

WHY have they been moved? They are more relevant here where the meaning is not lost. This is too much. You're just moving those posts so that they will be taken out of context. Leave the darned warn button (and all other buttons) alone for crying out loud. Enough is enough. What a crock. *****

Wow. This is a good example of an admin stretching their authority a bit too far. What's up with this CO? Someone is going to start calling you "CO Enforcer" if you can't lighten up even a little. I don't see how you could possibly interpret that as an attack. The comment about paranoia is certainly not attack worthy. RobertM merely mentioned that Zuuky appeared to be paranoid based on his incorrect assumption to RobertM's post. RobertM even explained in his post that the reference was not to Zuuky. Seemed pretty innoculous to me. Lighten up man -- you're way over the line here and it appears that you're a bit trigger happy with the warning button. You've got a little bit of authority CO Admin but you're not God. Chill out baby. *****

Ya, I miss the private threads too. I have an idea -- why don't we have an off topic forum? Ya, that would be good. *****

Sometimes you just can't argue the point. *****

This is pretty good. BTW: "Dave's not here, man" (Cheech and Chong circa 1978 ) *****

The cacher below me likes to leave Mc Toys in caches. *****

Hey, weren't you listening about the language part? Perhaps you should have said "ROFLMREO" (Rolling on floor laughing my rear end off). *****

That depends on whether you think it's a game or a hobby. With the exception of yourself, I'm not so certain that this is true. *****

That might have some relevance if we were speaking of cache pirates. But we're not. (Yes, a different version of pretty much everything.) *****

I was wondering that myself. *****

He quite often does (that's not an attack or a dig -- it's an observation). FWIW: I never saw you to be anti-caching. *****

Perhaps Yumitori, perhaps. If you were in my neighbourhood, I'd invite you out for a beer so we could laugh over it together. *****

While this may be true, if the tolerance level is set too low the whole idea of having public discussion forums is defeated and the possibility of relevant conversation is right out the door. *****

Since I didn't have opportunity to reply to this in the last thread before it was locked, I'll respond here. Firstly, regarding the comment "the only thing worse than talking about rules, is talking about approvers and approval policies." How is this considered an attack or a dig? It's my opinion of what I think is a relevant and accurate observation of the situation on these forums. No dig, just an observation. What's the problem with my reply to Yumitori? I mean come on, read his post again and tell me that he didn't have a little of this coming for his condescending choice of words. My comment about others not posting when this is the type of response that they get, was not out of line. I'll agree that my comment that he should keep his whining to himself was fairly blunt, in my zeal to get the point across, although fully warranted based on his innuendos. Let's get real here -- how many posts use words like 'you, and 'your'? When you are having a conversation with someone, do you avoid using those words? I don't think so. If I had said "Someone who is posting in this thread..." would it have been acceptable? Let's get reasonable here. I respect that you and I perhaps don't see eye to eye on these matters and I obviously see things differently than you. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- it's always good to contemplate someone else's point of view and I find myself agreeing with your point of view quite a lot (just not this time). I don't agree with pussy-footing around issues -- I tend to be directly up-front about things and deal with them head-on -- I find it the most direct way to a solution and it helps eliminate a lot of the unnecessary fluff. What really gets me with the way that the moderation is happening right now is that there are many who are being slapped for expressing their views and discussions are being closed when it's not warranted. As a result of this, you'll find that people are going to be less likely to honestly express their thoughts and concerns -- and that would truly be a shame. *****

This may very well be, but in the meanwhile there are a number of us who are being treated rather unfairly. I'd also have to disagree with Keystone Approver when he says that the previous thread had "fallen to the level of personal attacks". I certainly didn't see it that way and it's obvious that others didn't either. Lighten up folks. *****

I agree. But let's see them do the job properly with good sense. *****

Great post lessenergy, your take on the rules seems very accurate. I think you've nailed it. I hope that those who enforce the rules are listening. *****

That kind of talk will get you a warning. I know of what I speak. Give the guy/gal a break, it's a reasonable question. *****

This thread looks like it'll be interesting. *****

Can't say I'd disagree with any of this, it's my understanding as well. So who's complaining in this thread? Before answering that, there's one more definition that needs to be added: ques·tion An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply. An interrogative sentence, phrase, or gesture. A subject or point open to controversy; an issue. A difficult matter; a problem: a question of ethics. A point or subject under discussion or consideration. A proposition brought up for consideration by an assembly. The act of bringing a proposal to vote. Uncertainty; doubt: There is no question about the validity of the enterprise. ----- I see questions and suggestions in this thread, but nothing that looks like complaining. *****

OK, now I'm miffed. It seems that I'm being targeted here. I just noticed that my warn meter is now at 20% and I just received a PM from Tenessee Geocacher that says (in it's entirety): <snip> Nov 25 2003, 06:08 PM I don’t think I have to explain this to you be NICE of fellow posters<br> -------------------- </snip> Quite frankly, this is crap. For more than one reason. Firstly, who are you? Ann Landers? Where was I out of line? I'd like to know where I wasn't being nice to anyone. Secondly, is this what we are expected to get for a warning? No explanation. No nothing. This is the kind of moderating that this thread is about. *****

He he he. That's funny -- the gun's not loaded. Keystone Approver, is it OK if I laugh at that post? Hope I don't get called a suck up again. He he he. *****