CPAPtalk.com

Pugsy wrote:

grayghost4 wrote: the election will be over maybe

It's truly never over and I suspect even more so this election.
If Trump wins we will have "we are going to hell in a hand basket" comments.
If Hilary wins we will have "we are going to hell in a hand basket" comments.
Same message...just different names.

But hopefully the comments posted to cpaptalk along these lines will *stay* confined to the political thread(s).

There is one school of thought (one to which I do not as yet ascribe) that says that after 2016, nothing will ever again be able to be discussed publicly in America in a polite, restrained, courteous, respectful, inclusive manner.

Given the lack of moderator enforcement here, cpaptalk.com may well serve as a microcosm that will shed some light on what will be the case on a larger scale in the days and years to come.

SleepyEyes21,

You write:

And what is happening around me? A LOT of people are NOT HAPPY And the underlying threat seems to be: 'if you don't shape up and do things our way, we will consider you to be a Bully too and will ostracize you, just like a troll.' Now- Robysue, please explain again how "more Moderation is NOT going to happen," when it is quite normal for this to be happening in an online group?

I believe that you and I disagree on the definition of "Moderation." I'm not sure what your definition is, but it does not appear to be my definition of Moderation. Here's my definition of Moderation:

• (Robysue's working definition of Moderation in an on-line forum) A forum is Moderated if there are a very small group of members who are designated as "Moderators" and the Moderators are charged with enforcing a specific set of published, official rules that all posters and all posts must abide by. Moderators have the right to edit or remove posts that do not conform to the forum's rules. Moderators have the right to move an off topic post to another thread or subforum. Moderators have the duty to warn posters who break the rules that their posts have broken the official rules. Moderators have the right and duty to ban forum members who regularly violate the forum rules. The forum administration has a designated system for choosing Moderators. Should the forum administration decide that it is necessary, the forum may also have a policy where all posts must be read by and approved by an Moderator before the post is publicly available to all members of the forum.

As I said, I don't think my definition of Moderation is your definition of Moderation, SleepyEyes. But under my definition of Moderation, Johnny and Carolyn are the only official Moderators for the forum. And Johnny's rules for Moderation are found in viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20895&p=179739#p179739 and they state:

johnnygoodman wrote:Greetings,

Subject #1

Some CPAPtalkers have been using the spam mechanism to delete posts from others members which they disagree with. These posts often express unpopular or inflammatory views, but are not profane.

Any member of CPAPtalk may embrace or discard ideas offered on our free marketplace. Any member may offer their own ideas to counter others. This is called freedom. With freedom comes responsibility, in this case that includes being respectful of your fellow CPAPers. Don't squander freedom, practice the golden rule on CPAPtalk.

When someone decides to use a tool built to keep our community clean to "force" a certain idea or remove another, they are taking from our free marketplace and hurting the community. If your idea is so much better, state it clearly and let people pick up on it. This is the way rational, civil people interact with each other. This is how we must treat each other to help those who come here in a terrible state trying to get good sleep.

I'm not issuing warnings on this, if you have done it, you will soon not be able to report spam. If you are caught tampering with or disabling the bathroom's smoke detector, or in this case, getting cute with proxies or IP masking in order to report more "spam", you will no longer be welcome on CPAPtalk.


Subject #2

My approach to moderating cpaptalk is well known. Here's the basic rational:

Beware the person who wishes to legislate the morality and the behavior of his neighbor. Respect the person who accepts as responsibility, duty and sacred privilege the task of successfully moderating his own behavior. People who can do this are rare beacons of light. It is easy to point the finger "elsewhere" and imagine a utopia will result. It is hard to do the work and take responsibility to make your first utopia internal. Paraphrasing Ghandi - be the change you wish to see in the world.

There are no rules, no distant moderator, no respected member of the community that can legislate or moderate away our own foul dispositions. If this were not true, one of the many forms of government our forefathers have tried would have worked. For another example of the rhetoric used by people who advocate such a position, read literature from those favoring prohibition before its enactment. These people believed sincerely in their cause, they had good intentions and were good people but their actions were doomed to failure from the start.

How does all of that lofty philosophy play out in real life? In the most basic terms,
I'm trading value for value. I provide the domain, the hosting, the software and the moderation of CPAPtalk in accordance with my set of beliefs regarding human nature and business. You may use it free of charge, you may find a better board or you may start your own.

There will be no additional moderators on CPAPtalk. The core values of this board will continue to govern it. Love your neighbor and be a neighbor others can love.

Johnny

There are two parts of Johnny's moderation philosophy that are worth reiterating:

• Beware the person who wishes to legislate the morality and the behavior of his neighbor.
• There are no rules, no distant moderator, no respected member of the community that can legislate or moderate away our own foul dispositions.

So when I state that "more Moderation is NOT going to happen", I mean all of the following and only the following:

• The Goodmans are not going to write any additional rules that posters must abide by in order to post to the forum.
• The Goodmans are not going to appoint members of this forum as official Moderators with the power to legislate the behavior of the members of this forum.
• The Goodmans are not going to appoint members of this forum as official Moderators and then give those official Moderators the task of controlling the tone of discourse on the forum by giving them the right and responsibility to "monitor" others' posts for "bad behavior" and then remedy that bad behavior through such means as editing or removing posts, officially warning posters to clean up their bad behavior, and/or banning members from the group.
• The Goodmans are not going to try to control most day-to-day examples of "bullying" by increasing their own (very light) Moderation of the forum.
• The Goodmans retain the right (as the administrator and owner) of the forum to occasionally step in and deal with an excessively bad situation, and Johnny and Carolyn have sole control over what "bad situation" means in any particular instance.
• The Goodmans have the right to handle "bad situations" either in public or in private and they owe no explanation to the members of this forum for their choices in how to deal with a "bad situation."

Having said all that, I am aware that the Goodmans do keep a pretty close eye on what goes on around here, but they choose to not step in as official Moderators on a frequent basis because they sincerely hope and believe that most of the people on the forum can be trusted to behave a grown-ups most of the time.

SleepyEyes,

I've tried to read the last post addressed to me. But it was not particularly easy to follow what you are saying. If I take something out of context, I apologize.

(Robysue said) In other words, for this forum, "More Moderation" is just not going to happen.

Oh yes- it will. I promise. If you recall, Pugsy wrote in her first post in this thread that 'Carolyn was allowing us to self-moderate...

Self moderation does not equal more moderation.

You cannot force someone who insists on behaving like a jackass to self moderate. And under Johnny's Rules, neither you nor I have the right to force them to behave, remove their posts, or take away their posting privileges.

As an extremely lightly (essentially unmoderated) community we can ask others to behave. We can tell people (politely) how we wish they would behave. We can nag them. We can try to embarrass them into behaving. We can scream at them. And we can get right down in the mud with them and start throwing the slime right back at them. But again: we cannot force someone to behave the way we want them too.

In starting this thread, all Pugsy wanted to do was to provide an easy to identify place for folks who insist on long, nonproductive arguments, particularly arguments with a lot of name calling, to take their arguments so that the helping threads don't get side tracked.

And as I stated in my last post, as the Group began to establish norms- the Group decided on those unspoken and unwritten norms based off of the majority displaying the same preferred self-moderation techniques.

Here's how I see it: You are not particularly happy with the current Group norms the group has been working with since Johnny founded cpaptalk over a decade ago. You want to rewrite the Group norms so that they reflect what you want them to be, but you are getting some push back from other members of the group who are happy enough with the current Group norms.

So- although some members want to say that Johnny is the only one who can moderate someone's behavior in the forum because of his posted rules, that is not completely true. For example, take a look here at what I am doing in my posts in this OT thread. Some would say it is "Social Suicide." 'I have knowingly gone against the rules of the group and I stand up to Bullies, AND I am perceived to have actually FED THE TROLLS at times'

It may be a shock to you, but by the current Group norms you have indeed been feeding the trolls at times. And at times you have dragged others into the fray while you are feeding the trolls. And the helping thread gets hijacked.

So again I ask: What is the purpose of hijacking a helping thread by knowingly participating in behavior that is considered feeding the trolls by the current Group norms?

Is the purpose to change the Group norms? If so, then in my opinion your efforts to change the Group norms backfire every time you choose to respond to the bullying with a post that does not contain any factual information about the OP's original question; and your efforts backfire because your actions contribute to sidetracking a helping thread.


You also write:

SleepyEyes21 wrote:

(Robysue said) 2) Since you think that ignoring the bullying is "not the only effective way to handle all cyberbulllying", kindly tell us what you do think a good way of handling the bullying is, but do keep in mind Johnny's Rules.

Please do not interpret my giving you general information a way of suggesting what you or anyone else should do to handle the bullying that goes on in here. I am simply giving you (and other members) factual information, any of which can be researched further by anyone interested. What you do with it is up to you. Here are some links and info I found:

Definition of Bullying
1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bully- to treat abusively; to affect by means of force or coercion; to use browbeating language or behavior;

2. http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/ ... lying.page - "A person is bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons, and he or she has difficulty defending himself or herself... This definition includes... important components: 1. Bullying is aggressive behavior that involves unwanted, negative actions; 2. Bullying involves a pattern of behavior repeated over time.
Today, more than thirty states have adopted laws against bullying... Types of Bullying: Bullying can take on many forms.
1. Verbal bullying including derogatory comments and bad names
2. Bullying through social exclusion or isolation
4. Bullying through lies and false rumors
9. Cyber bullying (via cell phone or Internet) Learn more about cyber bullying"

3. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cyberbullying - "the act of harassing someone online by sending or posting mean messages, usually anonymously; to bully online by sending or posting mean, hurtful, or intimidating messages…"

While I do not disagree with your definition of bullying, you did not answer my question: Given Johnny's rules what you do think the best way of handling the bullying is?

And I think this is where you and I have a disagreement: Given the rules of the forum, I personally think the best thing to do is to ignore bullying as much as possible. I think calling people out for bullying, particularly with name calling responses and particularly in a helping thread does nothing but hijack the helping thread and prevent the OP from getting the help they need.

I do NOT expect others to automatically follow the rules/suggestions that I try my best to live by. But I do have the right to advocate for those my "rules" and I do have the right to say that I think stirring up a posse to go after a bully inside a helping thread does more harm than good.

You have the right to disagree with me. You even have the right to persuade me that you are correct. And that's actually what I'm asking you to do: Tell me how you think bullying can be addressed in a way that does NOT disrupt helping threads and that also falls within Johnny's Rules.

I strongly suspect that there are quite a few members who are irritated with me because I don't follow the forum 'norm' of "ignore the bullies."

(Robysue said) I think you are correct. There are a few members who are irritated with you when you start feeding the trolls. I'll go further: I think there are a number of members who believe that you are one of the bullies because you sometimes counterattack with language that can be interpreted as bullying language of your own.

I can understand their perspective, of course, if they hold the belief that 'one shouldn't feed the trolls.' And I can understand how others may also think I am one of the bullies if my response is misinterpreted and/ or misread. However, everyone always has the choice to stop reading any thread and to go on to another.[/quote]
I don't particularly like to stop reading a helping thread where I've been one of the ones who is trying to help the OP.

But there are times where I've given up and have contacted the OP through PMs when I think the name calling and mutual bulling has taken over the helping thread.

If you can't read my mind, then you don't understand my thoughts; therefore you don't know my reasons for responding to the bullies."

(Robysue said) But here's the thing that you don't seem to understand: There IS an unwritten, but unenforceable, "group norm" that one should in general "Not Feed the Trolls" or at the very least, "Think Carefully about Feeding the Trolls" and IF you choose to feed the trolls, the group norm around here is that the way you respond should make sense: In other words, IF you choose to feed the trolls, your response should be well written enough to make it clear why you are feeding the troll by launching a personal attack.

Okay- I have to say I do not understand this unwritten 'group norm:' ...IF you choose to feed the trolls, the group norm around here is that the way you respond should make sense: In other words, IF you choose to feed the trolls, your response should be well written enough to make it clear why you are feeding the troll by launching a personal attack.

Here are my questions:
1. Why?
2. Who made this rule, in what year was the rule made, how many members were in the Group then, and how many voted For and Against this Rule?
3. Which one (or more) of Johnny's rules does this one come close to following?

Group norms evolve over time. As you yourself pointed out, they are unwritten.

The reason it is important to take the time to make your reasoning clear to the group is so that people do not misinterpret what you say.

In other words, you have every right to respond to bullies. Under Johnny's rules, you even have the right to respond to bullies in the middle of a helping thread. But if your writing is so unclear that people have to be able to "read your mind" in order to understand why you are responding to bullies in the middle of a helping thread, then your post is not helpful. It is not helpful in getting the helping thread back on track and it is not helpful in restoring some semblance of civility to the forum.

In other words, if you respond to a bully with name calling of your own and nobody can figure out why you've chosen to fan the flames in an incipient flame war because your writing does not adequately convey what you want to say AND it has nothing to do with the main topic of the helping thread, then it's no surprise if others decide that you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Pugsy wrote:

grayghost4 wrote: the election will be over maybe

It's truly never over and I suspect even more so this election.
If Trump wins we will have "we are going to hell in a hand basket" comments.
If Hilary wins we will have "we are going to hell in a hand basket" comments.
Same message...just different names.

And if either win, we will have to live with it, and it will be hell in a handbasket for all of us. Jim

Johnny and Carolyn (our sponsors of this forum) should be true democratic role models for all of us... beside just being cool people. Who woulda thunk it from mere CPAP suppliers? I hope they are involved in their local political scenes and bring that same level of ideology and justice to their neighbors and friends. Freedom isn't for wimps.

Sir NoddinOff wrote:Johnny and Carolyn (our sponsors of this forum) should be true democratic role models for all of us... beside just being cool people. Who woulda thunk it from mere CPAP suppliers? I hope they are involved in their local political scenes and bring that same level of ideology and justice to their neighbors and friends. Freedom isn't for wimps.

They could be republican

palerider wrote:because some people, and I think it's pretty clear who, are here not to help, but to cause trouble and drama.

You don't think you cause trouble and drama by speaking to people like they were clueless idiots, belittling them at every turn and speaking to them in the most vile language? In every third thread you are the head nasty, and others jump in right after you and pick up where you leave off. That's gang mentality.


Robysue and Pugsy...

Why is it that you protect him and have from the beginning of this thread? He's become more aware of that and now jumps in with you as though the three of you are family. I understand what you are trying to accomplish... I really do. However, there are times that I don't think you see the forest thru the trees as it pertains to him and some others.

Lucyhere wrote: Robysue and Pugsy...

Why is it that you protect him and have from the beginning of this thread?

Not RobySue but here's my thoughts.
PR has the exact same rights here and everyone else...now I know you don't like that fact but that's the fact despite your wanting to get people to feel your way is the "right" way. Remember...it's Johnny's sand box and not Lucy's sandbox.

I don't think I have "protected" him anyone more or less than anyone else who has been ugly here. I have publicly said that I cringe when I read what he sometimes writes. What more do you want me to say? You want me to spew the same level of vitriol that you spew...it ain't gonna happen....I won't do that to anyone.
You think because I didn't join your posse that I am protecting him??
He's not the only one here who can be and has been ugly.
I will say this..he and one other person (who also has been known to have a sharp tongue) have conveyed to me privately that they will try to do better and not say things inflammatory in helping threads.... And we both know the other person wasn't you. Since PR made that comment to me I haven't seen one instance where he resorted to his past tone in any of his responses...even when he was baited.

This thread was never meant to be a posse to lynch anyone and if you can't see that then I am so sorry but I don't know how to make it any plainer.

Remember...it's Johnny's sandbox...not yours...not mine...not anyone's but Johnny. We abide by Johnny's rules or decision to not make many rules if we want to play here. I will defend Johnny's rules though...and if Johnny has seen fit to not ban someone for ugly behavior...it's not my place to go up on the roof top and shout how ugly anyone is.
BTW...it's not your place either.

I have the right to look for good in people...you have the right to look for bad in people...which IMHO is all you want to do.

In this thread PR...and anyone else... which includes you...has the right to say anything they want.... ugly, right, wrong, indifferent...this isn't a helping thread. This is a duke it out thread and lord knows there's been a lot of duking here but I don't care.

I am not forming...nor will I join...any lynch posse out to get anyone no matter how ugly they have been in the past or even how ugly they might be in the future. If you think that is "protecting" PR (or the numerous others who also have been ugly in the past..and that includes you) then I suppose that might be "protecting" but it's protecting everyone who has been guilty of derailing a helping thread and PR wasn't alone in saying hateful ugly things. You are getting the same "protection" if you think my not attacking someone means I am "protecting" them.

I repeat...for those of you who can't seem to understand my goals here.
I don't want to dictate what people say or think. It's not my place in Johnny's sandbox to do that. It's not to referee or take sides in disagreements. It's not a let's lynch so and so.
My main goal is CLEAN UP THE HELPING THREADS SO THAT THEY DON'T GET TOTALLY DERAILED WITH THE UGLINESS.

It's simply a realization that there will always be heated, ugly, stupid fighting here...and if we are going to do it....TAKE IT OUT OF THE HELPING THREAD. How you all take it out of a helping thread...I really don't care...you all are supposed to be grown up adults and you all have to figure out on your own how you deal with ugliness...do you want to be part of the solution or continue to be part of the problem.
It doesn't mean that people can't disagree in a helping thread...all it means is please use a little common sense AND common courtesy when you are disagreeing so the focus doesn't change to so much ugly that the original intent of actually helping someone gets tossed right out the window.
When someone chimes in (in a helping thread) with nothing but "so and so is a jerk/whatever" and that's already either been pointed out or obvious...that's being part of the problem and not part of the solution...IMHO.

If you all think that I am going to join your "let's lynch so and so" posse here...it ain't gonna happen.
If you think my refusing to join the posse is "protecting" anyone...look in the mirror because I am also protecting you.

Here's my opinion on that, which is worth about .0000001 cent, or less, in Internet currency:

If you don't have a badge in this town, it isn't your place to use lights and a siren to try to pull people over and attempt to write tickets. And it is certainly not heroic to walk around here carrying a noose and trying to incite lynch mobs.

For me, the most important and informative statement in this thread, if I read the statement correctly, is that the Goodmans follow closely what happens here and continue to make the conscious choice not to do anything about it. So, from where I sit, that means that if you have an issue with CPAP.com City Hall not sending Batman to haul in the Joker, take it up with them there. If you feel someone is "protected" here, complain to the Goodmans, since they, and they alone, have the authority to be considered a protectorate of any sort.

Pugsy, on the other hand, merely informed us of the manner in which she may choose to ask some posters for a personal favor in some theoretical future threads. That's not an attempt to write a ticket; it's asking two drunks having a fistfight in the middle of the road if they would mind stepping aside so she can get the kids to school.

Back in the day, Dori's "time-outs," as I saw them, were a running joke and were used by Dori as a way to use her respected and loved role to give a kind reminder to people who welcomed her personal input on their behavior.

Heck, in the old, old days, even Snoredog would get out of the way when he really needed to and was asked politely.

jnk... wrote: Back in the day, Dori's "time-outs," as I saw them, were a running joke and were used by Dori as a way to use her respected and loved role to give a kind reminder to people who welcomed her personal input on their behavior.

Heck, in the old, old days, even Snoredog would get out of the way when he really needed to and was asked politely.

It was a kinder, gentler time.
We had fun.
Wielding the torches and axes
(trying to keep JNK from coming in contact w/the axes)
against the DME castle gates,
trying to sort out what was really being done w/the Lansinoh and
is there really such a thing as the Zen of the Mask.

Not so much anymore.

Lucyhere,

I'm responding to your post by adding my remarks to Pugsy's post with some additions of my own.

Pugsy wrote:

Lucyhere wrote: Robysue and Pugsy...

Why is it that you protect him and have from the beginning of this thread?

Not RobySue but here's my thoughts.
PR has the exact same rights here and everyone else...now I know you don't like that fact but that's the fact despite your wanting to get people to feel your way is the "right" way. Remember...it's Johnny's sand box and not Lucy's sandbox.

Pugsy pretty much sums up my own thoughts in terms of PR.

Pugsy wrote:(addressing Lucyhere) I don't think I have "protected" him anyone more or less than anyone else who has been ugly here. I have publicly said that I cringe when I read what he sometimes writes. What more do you want me to say? You want me to spew the same level of vitriol that you spew...it ain't gonna happen....I won't do that to anyone.

I also do not think I have protected PR any more or less than anybody else who I've seen being ugly.

Pugsy wrote:(addressing Lucyhere) You think because I didn't join your posse that I am protecting him??

I also can't help but wonder: Is this the reason you think that I and Pugsy are somehow protecting him?

Pugsy wrote:(addressing Lucyhere)
Remember...it's Johnny's sandbox...not yours...not mine...not anyone's but Johnny. We abide by Johnny's rules or decision to not make many rules if we want to play here. I will defend Johnny's rules though...and if Johnny has seen fit to not ban someone for ugly behavior...it's not my place to go up on the roof top and shout how ugly anyone is.

I agree with Pugsy here.

I'll also add that in my humble opinion it is not reasonable to lobby forum members about how Johnny's rules should be changed. If you think the rules should be changed, you can PM Johnny and Carolyn with your complaints about the current official rules and suggestions you have for changing those rules. But Johnny and Carolyn have the right as the owners and administrators to ignore your suggestions if they want to.

Pugsy wrote:(addressing Lucyhere)I have the right to look for good in people...you have the right to look for bad in people...which IMHO is all you want to do.

I agree with Pugsy.

Pugsy wrote:(addressing Lucyhere) In this thread PR...and anyone else... which includes you...has the right to say anything they want.... ugly, right, wrong, indifferent...this isn't a helping thread. This is a duke it out thread and lord knows there's been a lot of duking here but I don't care.

Again, I agree with Pugsy. Heck I'll gladly defend anybody's right to duke it out here or on any other OT thread.

I'll also add: Pugsy and I don't make the forum rules and we do NOT want to make the forum rules, but we do have the right to request that others try to restrain themselves from duking it out in the middle of helping threads. And under Johnny's rules, other forum members have the right to ignore our request, but if you choose to ignore our request and decide to duke it out on the helping thread, I may ask you (politely) to take it elsewhere. I'll only ask once, and if you continue to ignore my request, I'll likely just start ignoring a lot of your posts in the helping threads, but I am likely to respond to your posts on the duke-it-out threads with language that makes it clear I think that I don't approve of duking it out on helping threads.

Pugsy wrote:(addressing Lucyhere) I am not forming...nor will I join...any lynch posse out to get anyone no matter how ugly they have been in the past or even how ugly they might be in the future. If you think that is "protecting" PR (or the numerous others who also have been ugly in the past..and that includes you) then I suppose that might be "protecting" but it's protecting everyone who has been guilty of derailing a helping thread and PR wasn't alone in saying hateful ugly things. You are getting the same "protection" if you think my not attacking someone means I am "protecting" them.

Like Pugsy, I am loathe to join posses and lynch mobs.

Pugsy wrote:(addressing the whole forum) It's simply a realization that there will always be heated, ugly, stupid fighting here...and if we are going to do it....TAKE IT OUT OF THE HELPING THREAD. How you all take it out of a helping thread...I really don't care...you all are supposed to be grown up adults and you all have to figure out on your own how you deal with ugliness...do you want to be part of the solution or continue to be part of the problem.
It doesn't mean that people can't disagree in a helping thread...all it means is please use a little common sense AND common courtesy when you are disagreeing so the focus doesn't change to so much ugly that the original intent of actually helping someone gets tossed right out the window.
When someone chimes in (in a helping thread) with nothing but "so and so is a jerk/whatever" and that's already either been pointed out or obvious...that's being part of the problem and not part of the solution...IMHO.

Two things are worth paraphrasing:

1) People can and should feel free to disagree in a helping thread, but when you disagree with a poster in a helping thread, try to disagree using some common sense and common courtesy.

2) When any one of you forum members posts nothing but "so and so is a jerk (or more colorful language of your choice)" in a helping thread when it's obvious that "so and so" is indeed a jerk and/or when others have already pointed it out in the helping thread, your post part of the problem and not part of the solution.

carbonman wrote:

jnk... wrote: Back in the day, Dori's "time-outs," as I saw them, were a running joke and were used by Dori as a way to use her respected and loved role to give a kind reminder to people who welcomed her personal input on their behavior.

Heck, in the old, old days, even Snoredog would get out of the way when he really needed to and was asked politely.

It was a kinder, gentler time.
We had fun.
Wielding the torches and axes
(trying to keep JNK from coming in contact w/the axes)
against the DME castle gates,
trying to sort out what was really being done w/the Lansinoh and
is there really such a thing as the Zen of the Mask.

Not so much anymore.

There is no Zen of the mask; but a dance.
Fighting is counter-productive; embracing always helps;
and it sure freaks out the chaperones.

Please, carbonman and chunkyfrog: You can't fight in here; this is the war room.