Guest Posting Preferences

unclebob wrote:Betty knew the answer! She explained it to Chuckie, and guess who got all the credit. Yeah the damn male chauvinist. Stole her idea, he did. Went and called it the preservation of species, survival of the fittest. And that why, to this day, some guests choose not to register! Hope this clears it up for you! -Bob F

I had almost forgotten that important milestone in biohistory. Clearly these represent a collective of instinctively maternalistic species preservationists. I've heard more colorful idiomatics in da hood, but yours slides right past all unintendeds. Awesome! Was that a single ententre? no, can't be. OH DEAR! am i one of THEM? *gasp*

MandoJohnny wrote:Well I have learned a couple of things.

1. No one will give me a straight answer to my question, which is an answer in itself.

2. We not only have amateur sleep doctors on this board, we also have amatuer psychologists and amatuer philosphers. Great...

this has to fall under the:

If ya can't baffle 'em with brilliance, befuddle 'em with BS

category

In the midst of this fracas, did anybody happen to notice that there's hardly any spam thus far this morning??!?!?!

dsm wrote:I am willing to concede that Johnny will allow guests to posts even though I have previously equated it to at times like debating with people who have hood over their heads. But when guests are merely seeking assistance of offering genuinely intended advice, who would want to block them

LOL! Apparently you would.

dsm wrote:PS I voted no

Perhaps you meant to say you voted yes.

kurtchan wrote:In the midst of this fracas, did anybody happen to notice that there's hardly any spam thus far this morning??!?!?!

There hasn't been for two days now.

This entire debate seems to me sort of like the Thomist "Angels on the Head of a Pin" debate - just sort of silly.

Yes, of course we remain pretty, or even absolutely, anonymous even when we register but under our forum names and avatar we develop a relative consistent personality that enables each participant to recognize, relate and anticipate a registered individual's contributions, attitudes, opinions and ideas. Guest is just "Guest", an unknown but that's OK too.

I think SWS and RG said it best but I'll paraphrase - if registration, for whatever reason (comprehensible or not, reasonable or not) prevents someone from getting the help and info they need then the price of requiring registration is too high - IMO. We can manage to work around the rest - again IMO.

David

Snoozin' Bluezzz wrote:

kurtchan wrote:In the midst of this fracas, did anybody happen to notice that there's hardly any spam thus far this morning??!?!?!

There hasn't been for two days now.

David

I just deleted one...... Hopefully it was a "loner".

Den

Yeah, I realized after I said that I didn't really know for sure because everyone is being very zealous about killing it as soon as they see it and now the Forumadmins have it set up so it goes away like it never existed.

I killed one too.

The effect is the same - very, very nice!

David

I too have to soak the blood of spammers out of my Trackball, I think that even Spammers can see they aren't going to get more than a minutes of fame here. The system works pretty good. Jim

Sleepless on LI wrote:

MandoJohnny wrote:Well I have learned a couple of things.

1. No one will give me a straight answer to my question, which is an answer in itself.

2. We not only have amateur sleep doctors on this board, we also have amatuer psychologists and amatuer philosphers. Great...

Why so bitter?

Lori, why do you interpret that as "Bitterness"?? ...please excuse the "why" question, OK? But it sounds factual to me, from what I've been reading.

Anonymous wrote:

Sleepless on LI wrote:

MandoJohnny wrote:Well I have learned a couple of things.

1. No one will give me a straight answer to my question, which is an answer in itself.

2. We not only have amateur sleep doctors on this board, we also have amatuer psychologists and amatuer philosphers. Great...

Why so bitter?

Lori, why do you interpret that as "Bitterness"?? ...please excuse the "why" question, OK? But it sounds factual to me, from what I've been reading.

I just get the impression that calling nice people "amateurs" when they're just voicing their ideas sounded a bit bitter to me, especially on the heels of stating no one would give him a straight answer to his question. But what I perceive isn't necessarily how others perceive something. We are all entitled to our own interpretations, whether right or wrong. And we know that MJ can/will tell me when he's incorrectly perceived. Don't worry about him.

Yeah, don't worry about me. I still feel the love!

MandoJohnny wrote:Yeah, don't worry about me. I still feel the love!

MandoJohnny wrote:I still feel the love!

Now there is a perfect example of a problem with perception.

I never thought I would ever post this many times on a thread (3). But now have become concerned with the intentional baiting by unhonourable persons.

Will probably regret this in the morning as I do cherish the freedom to express oneself. But now I am breaking my own personal guidelines by making a response to a poster I would immediately ignore.

My response is not actually to the recent guest poster (6:52) who seems to have a lock on what is the "correct" perception, but to the people more refined than I, who may sometime feel the need to respond to blatant ignorance.

My apologies to you all. I just got baited, please don't let it happen to you.

Bob F

Yes, of course we remain pretty, or even absolutely, anonymous even when we register but under our forum names and avatar we develop a relative consistent personality that enables each participant to recognize, relate and anticipate a registered individual's contributions, attitudes, opinions and ideas. Guest is just "Guest", an unknown but that's OK too.

Hell , I have even been mistaken as a woman , not that there is anything wrong with that .