quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
quote:
The problem is not a biased moderator, the problem is that some members don't like being called on their flaming or faulty arguments.


Interesting...

You're going to moderate faulty arguments? Cool but what explicitly stated board policies would regulate that?

I've yet to see board rules go quiet that far with an exception of arguments/complaints made in public about moderators.


Let me clarify. A moderator is not going to referee the logic of an argument. But some posters confuse an attack on their argument as an attack on their person. Consequently, these posters launch into extended baiting and flaming, which creates disruption in a thread. A moderator only monitors disruptive behavior.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
What about if something like 5 or 10 people were given moderator privileges? Would that be complete chaos or would folks knowing that their ears could be boxed by any number of people create an effective deterrent? Kinda like the argument that the pro gun folks have. 16

Ex. what if everyone over x,000 posts is given moderator powers?


It would help your board, I think.. if you could make it so the general board itself would be removed from the infighting then sure... but if you're referring to us? the moderators would be going at it like cats and dogs.. lol.. but that might be okay if no one else has to witness it...
All members with greater than 5,000 posts:


EbonyRose 13713
Fabulous 5350
HonestBrother 8877
James Wesley Chester 8999
Kevin41 5869
Khalliqa 6903
Kweli4Real 7821
negrospiritual 8588
Nmaginate 11878
Oshun Auset 6819
ricardomath 5875
Rowe 5350

What do you think about this group as moderators? Would this cut across "cliques"? Would it represent a "fair" group?

Thoughts? Just throwing this out to consider lots of creative ideas for us. 15
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
What about if something like 5 or 10 people were given moderator privileges? Would that be complete chaos or would folks knowing that their ears could be boxed by any number of people create an effective deterrent? Kinda like the argument that the pro gun folks have. 16

Ex. what if everyone over x,000 posts is given moderator powers?


MBM,

I respect that you trying to navigate what you see as potential politics and complaints. This is not about me, Vox or catch being moderators. Unfortunately, some posters are framing it this way to avoid discussing the problem on AA.org. The problem is the failure of self-policing. If we all start using the report post button, you have acknowledged you don't have the time to review it all. A moderator would do this and members would know their input has been received and reviewed. Right now, it is unclear when someone's ears have been "boxed". Total posts have no bearing on "qualifying" to be a moderator.

The board is still small enough to need no more than three moderators. Every board I have participated on gets an increase in desired behaviors when moderators come on board.

I would say choose willing candidates that you have faith in and review the board atmosphere and membership in three months. You can always go back to the way things were or choose new moderators if you don't like the direction of things at AA.org.
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....


I see AA.org as a cyber social club. If we were to engage one another offline would we need a moderator to keep things civilized?

Personal I think it would be a sad day when someone has to monitor the behaviour of this crowd of intelligent folk.



Whirling Moat


I think we all share that sentiment on some level WM.. but Michael is asking for solutions to neutralize the arguments that get out of hand from time to time..

What say you?
Peace...


quote:
I think we all share that sentiment on some level WM.. but Michael is asking for solutions to neutralize the arguments that get out of hand from time to time..

What say you?



Well I think things would become alot less hostile if we all stop trying to publically denounce other posters for their motives for posting an opinion and simply argue the merits of a position.

If a person seems to be advancing a BS argument, either prove them wrong or ignore the post...Too often we get into these arguments about the argumentation style of others or we question their motives..Just leave that out of any discussion...


Whirling Moat
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace...


quote:
I think we all share that sentiment on some level WM.. but Michael is asking for solutions to neutralize the arguments that get out of hand from time to time..

What say you?



Well I think things would become alot less hostile if we all stop trying to publically denounce other posters for their motives for posting an opinion and simply argue the merits of a position.

If a person seems to be advancing a BS argument, either prove them wrong or ignore the post...Too often we get into these arguments about the argumentation style of others or we question their motives..Just leave that out of any discussion...


Whirling Moat


I agree with you .. and that position has been advanced many times.. but it doesn't work.. I can post links to just about everyone violating this principle.. and on many occasions...

Do you think there is something that can be done when no one polices themselves but everyone accuses the other of not policing themselves??? sck or policing themselves for a time.. then breaking loose and goading others into arguments on purpose then becoming quiet again? lol.. happens all day every day.. getting old too..

You've been on boards with moderators how was that experience?? good or bad?
Peace...

If a person is in violation if a rule...I think someone on the board can perform a public service and simply cite the rule violation and ask the person to cut it out...

Anyone can do this...


And yes i have been on other forums...The ones with Moderators were always just as hostile as the self policed forums.

The moderators are normally pretty biased..


Whirling Moat
quote:
This is not about (1) me, (2) Vox or (3) catch being moderators.


All members with greater than 5,000 posts:

EbonyRose 13713
Fabulous 5350
HonestBrother 8877
James Wesley Chester 8999
Kevin41 5869
Khalliqa 6903
Kweli4Real 7821
negrospiritual 8588
Nmaginate 11878
Oshun Auset 6819
ricardomath 5875
Rowe 5350

quote:
Total posts have no bearing on "qualifying" to be a moderator.


quote:
The board is still small enough to need no more than three moderators.


Too funny... (you have to admit, that's funny)


Anyway...

quote:
Let me clarify. A moderator is not going to referee the logic of an argument...

A moderator only monitors disruptive behavior.


I am decidedly less interested now. It is the "faulty" logic in people's arguments, particularly arguments of the type that inspired threads on "Intellectual Dishonesty" and "Logical Fallacies", that are the catalyst, if not the epitome of disruptive behavior. But then, again, maybe I'm just talking about things that set me off. Wink

quote:
some posters confuse an attack on their argument as an attack on their person


I think there's thin line there... and I'm speaking from what's been an on-going issue here for a while. At the very least, this goes back to the TONE LOCO thread and general feedback I know I got at the time and from time-to-time before and after...

I think there is a general expectation a lot of people have that they're position shouldn't be attacked. What I'm referring to is the feedback I've personally received from making other people feel like they don't have a right to their opinion.

I don't know how you moderate against those types of expectations which, again, I think a lot of people have.

Regardless, I think I'd have to side with you, DDouble, and openly support the idea of moderators (with MBM moderating them, of course). That would help MBM a lot and possibly could have long since set the tone for the type of board people say they want.

I've been suspended before so my feelings won't be hurt if I'm asked/forced to leave. But, sadly, I used to hold this board in high regard (undoubtedly my suspension for my own reckless/insolent conduct, I might add, had something to do with that) so it would be nice for AA.org to regain (or even surpass) the kind of esteem, atmosphere, etc. that some of us romanticize about.

I do have to wonder, however, to what degree its possible on a board like this. It this was a blog, it would be easier to manage but since all members have thread creating ability, moderating the content of XXXX amount of threads day-in, day-out would be a challenging and thankless task... at least until the rules, tone and spirit of the board-to-be sets in.
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace...

If a person is in violation if a rule...I think someone on the board can perform a public service and simply cite the rule violation and ask the person to cut it out...

Anyone can do this...


And yes i have been on other forums...The ones with Moderators were always just as hostile as the self policed forums.

The moderators are normally pretty biased..


Whirling Moat


The problem is, and I am really not trying to be difficult, but a person will cite what they feel is a just rule now and the other will cry foul.. proving the intentions, motivations etc.. of someone is difficult.. a lot of stuff happens not because of one event but all of the snide side sneaky stuff that goes on to hide their hand AND all of the SUSPICIONS of snide side sneaky stuff that could be going on... sck

I suppose I'm saying that the rules are going to be expressed through the bias of the moderator.. and the only moderator that can be trusted is one outside..

But you know what? you are right about moderated boards.. they do get just as crazy as the ones that are unmoderated.. with the addition of fights WITH the moderator.. lol...

with one exception and thats a board where an intense fight is shut down.. and the positions are highlighted and no one judges who did what.. they just curtail the intensity, not weigh the arguments themselves... so if a thread is going on for days and causing negativity in other areas of the board.. the thread will be shut down.. and the initial points will be posted.. cut and pasted so that there is no bias...

I liked that system when it happened...

The moderator comes on the thread after a while and just asks everyone to keep it cool... if nothing happens the thread is shut down...

But then that moderator had the respect of everyone so... sck
Your post sounds a lot like this:

1)Monitor all "hot" threads; the portal page ID's topics getting the most views.

2)Take over responsibility for reviewing all reported posts.

3)Create a clear definition of flaming, baiting and other trolling tactics. This would be stickied at the top of each forum.

4)Create a corrective action sequence for members that violate 3). This would include warnings by PM, warnings within thread, temporary bans as well as permanent bans. This would be stickied at the top of each forum.

5)Move threads to The Big House, delete posts within or lock in original forum (on a temporary or permanent basis) based on how quickly it devolves vs. quality information within.

beer

The board rules should be followed not because a moderator is respected, but because the board founder who chooses the moderator is respected.
No... you are adding your own thing.. which is fine to have and assert, but is not an accurate reading of my post..

I simply stated that the best moderation I've seen completely leaves out moderation of posters.. and just locks down excessively heated threads.. reposting through cut and paste the key positions (often equal in number)

I made a side comment that the respect for the moderator lessened any sense of injustice...


I did not offer what posters "should" do.. but commented on what I witnessed worked...


Your post adds monitoring and judging poster activity and motives.. and warning/removing accordingly.. that's a level of control over poster behavior I do not feel is necessary...
quote:
The excessive hostility is a primary reason why the board isn't creating more active members.


I think I remember this being asked before a long time ago... Who knows people who have left or decided not to become members because of what you're saying?

I say that because there are bound to be any number of reasons -- combination of reasons -- up to and including the perceived/real tone of the board that factor into decisions to leave or never register for membership.

Some of ya'll may have more experience with other boards but for boards of this nature, particular a board geared (1) towards African Americans and (2) more or less opened to all shades, shapes and sizes of Black political orientation/ideology... Well, I don't know how big of an active-regular posting membership you think can be achieved here.

Most Black boards/blogs I know of are small. And that's counting the one's with a more or less well-defined academic, demographic and/or ideological niche where the vast majority of the core posters generally agree on 90% of everything.

I'm just saying part of the tension here comes from the greater amount of diversity here than in other less hostile places with comparable formats. Looking back at those posts numbers... the fact that members have been around so long is a factor too.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:

Most Black boards/blogs I know of are small. And that's counting the one's with a more or less well-defined academic, demographic and/or ideological niche where the vast majority of the core posters generally agree on 90% of everything.


That's an excellent point.. Though the black boards I've been on are double/triple the number here.. they do cater to a niche and practically all of the members share the same foundational value system regarding the theme of the board.. and when there are arguments, very heated ones, they are rare or are part of the board that is an aside to the core theme..

quote:


I'm just saying part of the tension here comes from the greater amount of diversity here than in other less hostile places with comparable formats. Looking back at those posts numbers... the fact that members have been around so long is a factor too.


yeah... that too.. sck like an old married couple.. you know the ends and outs.. the slights, habits, tendencies and whatnot.. *sigh*
quote:
I suppose I'm saying that the rules are going to be expressed through the bias of the moderator


My suggestion is that all members or core-active members come up with and agree on the rules for moderation and the complete system for what's to be done when a rule infraction occurs and when a moderator shows bias/favoritism. That way there won't be one or two or three rules that reflect the bias of a few people who become moderators.

quote:
a board where an intense fight is shut down.. and the positions are highlighted and no one judges who did what.. they just curtail the intensity, not weigh the arguments themselves... so if a thread is going on for days and causing negativity in other areas of the board.. the thread will be shut down.. and the initial points will be posted.. cut and pasted so that there is no bias...


yeah
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:

quote:

I'm just saying part of the tension here comes from the greater amount of diversity here than in other less hostile places with comparable formats. Looking back at those posts numbers... the fact that members have been around so long is a factor too.


yeah... that too.. sck like an old married couple.. you know the ends and outs.. the slights, habits, tendencies and whatnot.. *sigh*


Yeah, and that old membership also factors in on what turns potential new members away.
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:

quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
quote:
The problem is not a biased moderator, the problem is that some members don't like being called on their flaming or faulty arguments.


Interesting...

You're going to moderate faulty arguments? Cool but what explicitly stated board policies would regulate that?

I've yet to see board rules go quiet that far with an exception of arguments/complaints made in public about moderators.


Let me clarify. A moderator is not going to referee the logic of an argument. But some posters confuse an attack on their argument as an attack on their person. Consequently, these posters launch into extended baiting and flaming, which creates disruption in a thread. A moderator only monitors disruptive behavior.




For clarity, an attack on a poster's argument begins like this:

A. The flaw in your argument is...
B. The problem with that conclusion is...
C. The information being referenced here is...
D. The discrepancy is..


While an attack against the person begins like this:

A: You are a limited individual
B: You are disingenuous
C: YOu are beneath me
D: You obviously have never been in a yada yada
quote:
B: You are disingenuous


I would disagree with this one but I can understand how it would come across as a personal attack.

I believe it's possible to say, "you're being disingenuous" as way to attack someone's argument/statement as not being genuine given the information known about the person's argument to that point.

I think the difference is in whether someone is talking about the character of the person or the character of the person's argument/statement. The latter, IMO, should not be perceived as a personal attack and, IMO, can be easily addressed/disputed by showing the link and/or consistency in one's statements/arguments (I've seen you do that on the Condi Rice thread).

On the other hand, there are grounds to even question charges of "disingenuousness" directed towards someone's statements/arguments when the person making the charge is wrong and doesn't have their facts straight, so to speak. I say that because people can easily jump to conclusions and assume the worst on the basis of who the person is and/or how they view the person... instead of doing a thorough enough investigation (i.e. reading more than the first, random post they start with) to ensure their suspicions are founded.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:

I agree. If there is a moderator at all, it must be someone from outside AA.org. No one currently in consideration has the ability to rise above old grudges well enough to do a fair and impartial job of moderating.


Doesn't a moderator - to some degree - have the effect of allowing folks to do whatever until they get slapped? Why can't we just take personal responsibility for ourselves? Why do grown ass adults need a third party to come in and chaperone their behavior here? Doesn't anyone else think that odd?

In reality, we're probably talking about a real core active group of only about 20 members. That few number of people can't self regulate? Confused bang 14


That would be a "No". sck

And that's not just 'here' on the board ... but is true for groups/communities in real life, too. Black people need/do better with a leader. When someone is "in charge" the result is almost always more cooperative, organizational and successful. But for some reason, that's just a truth that most people don't want to accept.

However ... I especially like Fabulous' point about there not being any reporting of offensive posts and/or content. That needs to be done FIRST ... and would be about the only possible 'self-policing' solution that has a possibility of working. It's kinda unfair to blame MBM for not doing anything about something he knows nothing about. I know I am guilty of both not reporting and then complaining ... so, seeing it from his side, I suppose I owe him an apology for that, myself.

I also agree with a lot of what Ddouble, Khalliqa, and Nmag have said as far as a moderator goes. Except that I don't think that individual posts (or posters) need to be "moderated", as much as there just needs to be hard fast rules regarding the type of dialog, discussion, and behavior you would like to go on here and those rules need to be earnestly enforced.

I also don't think that any other person except MBM should have the authority to ban any member. Any moderator(s) should have to discuss their concerns (with MBM and/or any other moderators) before taking any actions - such as sending out warnings.
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
However ... I especially like Fabulous' point about there not being any reporting of offensive posts and/or content. That needs to be done FIRST ... and would be about the only possible 'self-policing' solution that has a possibility of working. It's kinda unfair to blame MBM for not doing anything about something he knows nothing about.


During the time when Romulus first joined the forum, I remember reporting his posts, and I don't recall receiving a response, and I don't recall anything being done about it. This member continued to wreak havoc on the forum and to act buck wild to an undesirable extent. And of all people, Fabulous should not ever be considered for a moderator position. From my observations, this individual is the female version of Romulus. She is hot tempered, possesses a terrible attitude, is unncessarily hostile, and it takes very little for her to tell someone "fuck you" when she reads something that she does not like. And the majority of her posts are merely written to either harrass or side with various members. I wonder what does this type behavior have to do with community building? Exactly how does it contribute to intelligent discussion? All it does is sow seeds of turmoil and strife among our members. In my opinion, these types of people who thrive on negativity rather than productivity should not have the privilege of being AA.org members. And I'm not discussing these two individuals in order to say that their behavior has been worse than others, but their behavior and obsevered interactions with other members are prime examples of the destructive behaviors that have been compromising the quality of this forum for months, and nothing has been done about it. And so, I am not at all surprised to discover that yet again the members of AA.org must have a "group discussion" about how to better behave.

The first requirement for the community advancement of ANY race is to love and respect one another in brotherhood and sisterhood, and African Americans in general need to show one another a lot more love and respect. And recently, I've reminded myself that I did not join this forum to engage in negative and unhealthy conversations. That does nothing for me at all. And when the quality of this forum is compromised by individuals who cannot express themselves with civility, regardless of with whom they are speaking, that's when AA.org moves away from it's original mission, which is/was to provide a place for socially-productive and informed African Americans to intelligently discuss a variety of topics relevant to their community and the society at large.

Folks, the forum guidelines have already been set. And if a member cannot abide by the guidelines, which are clearly stated, then perhaps he or she should find a discussion forum that is better suited. In addition to the guidelines, I'd like to also suggest the following practices for on- and off-line communication

(1) Exercise self control and self dignity.

(2) Show others patience and understanding.

(3) Cultivate a positive attitude and a positive mentality (Remember: The way in which you treat others says a lot about the way in which you view and treat yourself).

(4) Show people the same quality of respect that hopefully you expect to receive from others.

Placing unruly posters on ignore isn't always effective, because you can read their responses in the responses of members who are not on your ignore list. And ultimately AA.org can assign moderators, but the only sure way to modify indecent behavior is for the those who cannot abide by AA.org's community guidelines to face consistent consequences.

Take care.

African America.org Community Guidelines
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
However ... I especially like Fabulous' point about there not being any reporting of offensive posts and/or content. That needs to be done FIRST ... and would be about the only possible 'self-policing' solution that has a possibility of working. It's kinda unfair to blame MBM for not doing anything about something he knows nothing about.


During the time when Romulus first joined the forum, I remember reporting his posts, and I don't recall receiving a response. And I don't recall anything being done about it. This member continued to wreak havoc on the forum and to act buck wild to an undesirabe extent. And of all people, Fabulous should not ever be considered for a moderator position. As far as I'm concerned, this individual is the female version of Romulus. She is hot tempered, possesses a terrible attitude, is unncessarily hostile, and it's takes very little for her to tell someone "fuck you" when she reads something that she doesn't like. I am not discussing these two individuals in order to say that their behavior has been worse than others, but their behavior and obsevered interactions with other members are prime examples of the poison that has been eating away at the high quality of this forum for months, and nothing has been done about it. And so, I am not at all surprised that yet again AA.org has to have a "group discussion" about how to better behave. African Americans in general need to show one another more respect and civility, and I did not join this forum to engage in negative and unhealthy conversations. That does nothing for me at all. And when the quality of this forum is compromised by individuals who cannot express themselves with civility, regardless of with whom they are speaking, that's when AA.org moves away from it's origninal mission, which is/was to provide a place for intelligent, African Americans to discuss a variety of topics.

The forum guidelines have already been set, and it's really a simple formula. And if you cannot abide by this formula, which is clearly stated in the forum's guidelines, then I suggest that you find a discussion forum that is better suited to your personality and attitude:

(1) Exercise self control and self dignity

(2) Try patience and understanding before launching accusations

(3) Read carefully, and

(4) Show people the same repsect that you would want to receive

Take care.


And you Rowe are lying as usual. I mean, don't you EVER tell the truth. Confused

I give respect when 'respect' is due and unfortunately that leaves YOU out.

The fact of the matter is

all anyone has to do is read my history on this board to determine if (as you so falsely stated) it takes very little for me to use the "F" word whenever I disgree with someone Roll Eyes

Stop lying.

What the readers will find is a chosen few who (I feel by their actions/commentary against me personally) are deserving of the 'F" word and YOU just happen to be one of them.

I don't take shyt from people in the REAL world, I'm certainly not gonna take any from some of the characters here.

As for you,

why bother reading my posts, better yet, why make derogatory comments about me when you 'know' I will respond AND you won't like what I have to say.

That's on you, homie. You must enjoy the negativity.

Don't start none won't BE none.

Now, why don't you stop using my name in your commentary before I say something (once again) that you won't like.

You wouldn't know 'respect' if it slapped you in the face, you just wanna control everybody & everything because that's what 'control freaks' (like you) 'do' on a daily basis. Roll Eyes

I'm a grown ass woman and I'm not about to take shyt from people like you. kneegrow please Roll Eyes . grow up.

so here's a new one for ya:

screw you
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:


so here's a new one for ya:

screw you


Wow...that didn't take much...

lol munch


Yep, and here's another one deserving of rebuke (in my book)

read the history folks to understand why I'd tell this piece of fungus (aka richardomath) to

ESAD

when I first came to this board he directed his foul mouth at me ... and it's been 'on' every since.

I'm a black woman and I will NOT accept that type of behavior from a white man, period.

AS IF!
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:


so here's a new one for ya:

screw you


Wow...that didn't take much...

lol munch


Yep, and here's another one deserving of rebuke (in my book)

read the history folks to understand why I'd tell this piece of fungus (aka richardomath) to

ESAD


Good thing for you there is no moderator here.

lol
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:


so here's a new one for ya:

screw you


Wow...that didn't take much...

lol munch


Yep, and here's another one deserving of rebuke (in my book)

read the history folks to understand why I'd tell this piece of fungus (aka richardomath) to

ESAD


So much for your talk about hypocrites...

19


Nope, I stated my case.

I give what I get....

you wanted 'negativity' so I gave it to you.

why else would you get involved 'especially' knowing our history (yours & mine)?

you 'incite' negativity (from me) otherwise why even comment?

I'm straight across the board ...

as I stated in a previous post...

there are a chosen few (deserving of the "F" word) and you made my list a long time ago.

Folk can read the history for themselves.

Not many black women would put up with the nonsense from the likes of 'white' you.

for the record, I'm not bucking for moderator because

I'd probably try to figure out a way to get rid of your trifling ass. WB
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:


so here's a new one for ya:

screw you


Wow...that didn't take much...

lol munch


Brother Ricardo,

You don't need to make a clown laugh. The clown knows how to make a fool of himself.

And if one is paying attention, it's really not that difficult to identify the members who are the least contributing to the forum.
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:


so here's a new one for ya:

screw you


Wow...that didn't take much...

lol munch


Yep, and here's another one deserving of rebuke (in my book)

read the history folks to understand why I'd tell this piece of fungus (aka richardomath) to

ESAD


Good thing for you there is no moderator here.

lol


you can always report the post. Duh!
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:


so here's a new one for ya:

screw you


Wow...that didn't take much...

lol munch


Brother Ricardo,

You don't need to make a clown laugh. The clown knows how to make a fool of himself.


Just like a LIAR (rowe) will LIE about the most trivial matters.

and control freaks (rowe) will try to control every word & action.

stop projecting your own 'fool' self onto me.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:


so here's a new one for ya:

screw you


Wow...that didn't take much...

lol munch


Brother Ricardo,

You don't need to make a clown laugh. The clown knows how to make a fool of himself. So let's just sit back and watch.


'This' from the woman who LIED and said she put my posts on 'ignore'. See? I told you she was a LIAR.

She's too nosey to put anybody on 'ignore' ... too afraid she might miss something. lol
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Fabulous:


so here's a new one for ya:

screw you


Wow...that didn't take much...

lol munch


Brother Ricardo,

You don't need to make a clown laugh. The clown knows how to make a fool of himself. So let's just sit back and watch.

And if one is paying attention, it's really not that difficult to identify the members who are the least contributing to the site.


that'a your biased opinion because the 'truth' of the matter is ... MBM's opinion (of what I bring to the table) is the only one that matters.

In other words, your opinion doesn't matter rowe....when it comes to what *I* contribute to the board

it never did.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post
×
×
×
×