Originally posted by JSocha: I feel the moderator should follow a "3-out" rule. Three warnings in a particular thread informing the individuals to either take it off-line via email, tone it down or what ever else is necessary (and/or based on Cliff's guidelines he wishes the moderators to follow in a particular area of the forum).
If they do not follow/heed the warnings after the 3rd time, the moderator should shut it down. At least the moderator would give them a chance and see that he is viewing both sides in as fair a method as possible if they see it as either degrading someone, flaming and/or not going anywhere constructive and/or positive.
Ok Jsocha, if you would run it like that, I would vote for you then. I know in your previous post you said something about closing topics that advocated the use of drugs, or something to that effect. (Now myself, I don't touch drugs, not even tylenol, but I am not against drug use) So when I read that, it turned me off to voting for you as a moderator. Just because I feel that these topics should be talked about. But I know for the most part, controversial issues, will just about always turn into flamewars, there are some times when they don't. So I think by taking a reactive approach to moderating, will be better than taking a proactive approach. This way people will see that it got ugly, and that it was deserving of being shut down.
The only other thing I disagree with it the 3-and-out rule. I don't think it should go out even that far. I think one warning is more than enough. If forum members aren't going to listen after one warning, they probably aren't going to listen after 3 of them. But this is not really a sticking point with me.
And I don't want to sound like I am bashing you JSocha. I have read many of you posts, and I do think you would be a great moderator for the off topic section. I am just more or less trying to point out the potential pitfalls that could come along in this. So please don't think I am attacking you. The last thing I am looking for is a fight with anyone!
Seriously, this is a great idea. Could we get a list of the candidates and then take a vote? the only thing i request is that the person be on here frequently. You know how fast a thread can get out of hand.
I myself would not close a thread for any reason other than "heated" out of control racial issues, blatant slander or serious flaming fest after a fair warning was issued. I would confer with my moderator counterpart or Cliff if needed for lesser questionable flame threads just to keep my bias in check. I would also push for lower taxes and cheaper daycare for the working poor. I think a soda machine should be allowed in the lobby area and will if elected will push for that Come pinky we have much planning to do before tomorrow night.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 07-06-2001).]
i nominate Orief, ogre and even Monkeyman. they are experienced old school forum members.
as for myself, i have a bit of time (over the next few months) and would be honored to moderate a section. while i have no experience doing this, i have been around for a while and seen the kinds of things that pop up (from time to time), causing offense. probably my biggest asset is the love i have of this forum, and the friendships it has brought.
------------------ hoop Red '86 GT 5 speed *Black '86 SE Automatic
This is the last time I will post on this topic.... but I feel this has to be said.
Well IMHO, this isn't going to work. And the 3 out rule won't work either. I mean think about it..... 2 moderators on each section, Publicly nominated and elected every 3 months.... all the politicking, posturing & voting issues & we'll need a new Forum section just to handle it all. Cliff, guess who gets to moderate THAT Forum section?
Take a look back at the discussion in this thread right here. Many of you guys are arguing back and forth right here. Just imagine all the flaming that will be going on in the political campaign.... this will be something to watch.
The 3 and out rule?..... why don't I like that idea?
Well let's say some one starts a nice technical thread in the tech section... like this one //www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/011699.html Then let's say 2 or 3 jerks come into the thread and start trouble, the moderator sees who started trouble and he warns him. The guy (or one of his buddies) starts trouble again, the moderator warns him again. Now for a 3rd. time the guy starts trouble again..... the moderator shuts down the thread. Instead of getting rid of the trouble makers, your 3 time rule would get rid of the thread. It would "Cut off the Nose to spite the Face".
Now who is punished here?
1) The person who caused all the trouble? NOPE, he's happy.... he set out to shut down the thread and he succeeded. 2) The person who started the thread? Not really, but after all the bullshit leading to the shut down of the thread, you can bet he won't be posting again soon. 3) The people who wanted to read the thread? Yep, they are the one's who will be punished. No only do they lose out on the info that was going to come from the thread...they will lose the future information that the person could have provided.
Cliff, don't get mad but I gotta tell you this. You wanted this Forum to grow fast. You wanted it to be the biggest and best. You and I had some "words" about the beginnings of the Forum. You remember those conversations we had and others can look some of them up in the archives. I love this Forum, I love the way it has been run for the most part etc.
Now it's the biggest and the best and you feel that you can't handle it.
Please don't get mad at me.... but if you go forward with this announced policy, July 6, 2001 will be marked as the day this Forum started to go down the tubes to become a shadow of what it once was & to be just like all the other Forums on the Internet.
You wanted to be the biggest and best, you got that wish. Now you need to make a decission that will effect everyone and you're going to leave that to an ELECTION? If you want some moderators, than YOU APPOINT them. And they serve at your pleasure AND they do what YOU tell them to do.
PLEASE Don't burden us with Nominations, Elections and 27 teenagers and their politicking. I can see it now, one candidate searches the Archives for "Mud" on the other candidate, then posts up all the mis-statements & mis-spelled words in his past. This is gonna be a kick to watch.
Now, you can flame me all you want, but remember your voting public is watching you right now.
Cliff I think it is a good idea that could use some tweaking. Archie does have somewhat of a point about the election "dirt" but hopefully the people nominated are responsible and mature enough to stay away from that path. Given the list so far I don't think it will be a problem. And BTW there are some very mature and responsible "teenagers" running around on this forum and it would be my advice not to label them, because after all, we're the future of the Fiero community.
Well, to be honest. I have to agree with Archie on the point of having Cliff pick the moderators, and having them be permanent. Well not permanent, they could always be removed by Cliff. Maybe Cliff could use this thread to get an idea on who is willing to take the job. This would take care of the politiking that would go on. And I know I would respect Cliff's choice for moderators.
But I don't agree with Archie on his idea's against the 3 strikes and out point. Of course it isn't fool-proof (Archie pointed out the obvious flaw of it) but I still think it's the best approach to take (Well at least something to that effect, as I said, I would probably only allow one chance) Nothing is going to be perfect. Most of the message boards that I frequent have moderators, so what should make us the exception? They seem to get along allright. There will always be flames and trolls, and just plain stupidity, you will never get rid of that completely. But at least, we will be able to tone it down a bit with some moderation.
No matter what we do, nothing is going to be perfect, and nothing is going to please everyone. Cliff, you have shown yourself numerous times to me to be a wise and intelligent person, so you make the choice on what's the best for the forum. And if not, you can always shut it down. It's your forum, it's your choice. But I hope you decide to keep it up, and use our advice to make a good decision about how to run the forum.
I just noticed this thread earlier today. Not sure when it started... I've been thinking about this for the last several hours...... I wasn't sure if I should comment since some people have already "voted" for me.
I'm not sure if voting the issue is a good idea. I think we need consensus on the initial choice but I don't particularly support the 3-month term idea. It's easy enough to yank the rights to system functions if someone starts screwing off. It won't be hard to know when that is happening. I have no doubt that if Cliff doesn't catch it himself, in very short order his mailbox will be stuffed with complaints.
On the subject of policy.... I've mentioned to Cliff that I feel we need to make various rules a bit more formal. Yes, I meant a Terms of Service kind of thing in that. Let me explain a bit of why...
Obviously we've had some problems. If a user has to agree to terms at registration, then there is little that can be done if they get booted for violating those terms. In the litigation happy world we currently have this is an essential piece of cover your ass.
Terms would include issues like no spam, "hate speach", illegal activity, and other items that many, in fact most, people here already live with just fine. Carefully written terms will not change things for most users one bit.
A very large item that makes this more complicated is that the PFF is a truly international forum. The System is in The Netherlands. This means that country and the European Union regulate it. It operates with access to countries like Germany and France that have very strict regulations about various types of speech.
There have been comments in the past that one person or another was tromping on someone else’s speech rights.... I hate to tell everyone but the U.S. Constitution is not in effect here any more than Cliff, and international law may decide. The simple fact is, countries like Germany, France, and a few others have speech regulations for all kinds of things besides the obvious anti Nazi stuff that has been in the press. Those people have mainly been occupied chasing E bay Yahoo and other big money sites but don't think they wouldn't come after this system should someone file a complaint.
For the most part, the things that would be in the terms of service should not change the way things are done.
On locking, we just don't get that many threads that need it. Anyone abusing such a right won't last long. When we do get such a thread it needs to be squashed but we have to be careful how that is handled. There are a bunch of reasons for this besides the ones that are obvious. Cliff reminded me of a couple that I won't repeat for security reasons.
For example, The only way I'd lock the Fierolisa thread would be if Lisa herself complained. Since she is apparently having fun in that thread along with the others involved, anyone else that whines about it can get stuffed.
Other threads that turn into squabbles, like a couple recent ones have between business owners, are annoying but I wouldn't lock them either. I don't care if people fight as long as it doesn't become a simple cursing match. Besides that, fighting can be a good thing. It either uncovers people you really don't want to deal with or the fighters eventually realize they are actually on the same page and maybe they ought to work a bit closer together.
Let’s face it… most threads that need locking are Really Obvious. I don’t think we need to complicate that with a voting system or whatever. If people have a particular problem with a thread then it’s easy enough for those persons to mail a moderator so it can be investigated. The person complaining needs to have a bloody good reason to lock a thread. Obvious reasons for locking would include illegal activity, harassment, “hate speech” and that sort of serious material. Whining about stupid B.S. isn’t going to fly.
When a thread is locked, the person doing it should immediately email Cliff so he knows why it was locked and has the “heads up” when someone comes screaming.
As for moving a thread... good idea. (I lost track of who proposed it.) If that's done then an email has to go out immediately to the person telling them it got moved and why. Mainly this seems to happen when new people get here that don't understand which forum is for what. Sometime people just don't pay attention.... I think nearly all of us have done this at least once. The E-mail is important here. This lets the offending person know we didn’t just delete the thread.
Finally, if people would like me to do this, That's fine with me. I can either float or help with the tech section where I do most of my work already. I'm also happy to help other moderators investigate requests to close a thread. (Even if I'm not myself a moderator in the thread in question.) Some things are obvious but others may need more input. My feeling is that once a request is made it should be discussed first with Cliff and other moderators if there is any doubt about the request. There are times where as we grow this can be a complicated issue.
------------------ Screamin Yellow Zonkers... If it's Screamin and Yellow, I ain't eatin it.
[This message has been edited by theogre (edited 07-06-2001).]
Guys, Archie did make good and valid points about the 3-out rule I suggested.
I suggested it only from my personal background in business. System Admin/MIS Consult and a manager to boot to which I am responsible for all individuals under me which includes any individual working on a computer, those directly under me as assistants and from the general position of a manager to take action if I see anybody in another department going outside the boundaries set if it is observed by me so it does not go any further. This includes informing their supervisor, lead-hand or the manager of that area all together. Sometimes things need to be spearheaded at the pass before it does get out of control.
Yes, nothing in the world is and/or will be perfect...here comes the politics of it folks from me
I feel with my background as a manager in my daily life and some of the actions I need to take by following the guidelines and policies that have been established over the years by the company I work with, I would hopefully be following a guide book to lets say the O/T area established by Cliff over time as well. For example, lets say through his guidleines he doesn't want the topic to have sexual inuendos towards the ladies on the forum.
As in my day job, I can be very fair and weed out what needs to be done, what issues may need to be addressed and/or what actions need to be taken, if any. Sometimes the thread may need a little redirection. By that, as I have learned (and it is not alwyas perfect), you can change an individual to move in the direction you may need them to without dictating to them but by implanting an idea in such a way, and as an old cliche goes, they actually are looking forward to the trip.
Of course, sometimes it is very, very successful, other times it is not and does backfire to which one may need to recourse their strategy to get them to move in the desired way.
Managers face those issues everyday, since they are dealing with such diverse personalities with the employees they work for. However, successful managers learn how to "read" the employees they work for to know how to interact with them. I feel the moderator is in est a manager and will face the same issues.
Then again, there are just some people they won't be able to work with at all. Do you punish the rest? NO. One needs to analyze what the true and underlying motivation is of the individuals causing the trouble and act fairly.
Not an easy job, but I feel strongly it can be done.
BTW Archie, glad I don't fall into the 27 and teenage category. Got them beat both in the number you set and the general category. Happy 33 here! and been a manager since I was 22 and have learned from other successful as well as unsuccessful managers. So one has an understanding what does and doesn't work.
Archie: Won't catch me flaming you for that. I do however have a few disagreements. Firstly, in line with Ogre's comments, I don't believe that Moderators will actually have to do all that much. It's more of a presence thing, show of force. I think that Moderators might be an asset, but I don't believe that they are a necessity. I think what we are trying to accomplish is to take the load off cliff a little. Most of the truly NARSTY(sic) posts are self-evident. The idea here is that those can be nipped at the bud BEFORE they escalate into the all-out wars that we've occasionally seen.
I do however disagree with the statement that this forum will go downhill. There is no basis for suspecting this.
I do agree with the problems of voting, though. I believe that we as a group should NOMINATE people, and let Cliff himself pick the moderators each time.
Now, for my own thoughts: -Yes, we need a CONCRETE set of rules and guidelines for what is not allowed in all topics. -Allowing moderators to move topics would be cool. -Neutrality is essential in a moderator. No flag waving (or flag burning) or personal thoughts. Just a straight "Is this appropriate" approach. Say what you like, for a mature adult, this shouldn't be TOO hard -Cliff should have the FINAL say in eveything. Maybe moderator should only be allowed to close a topic until Cliff deems it fodder for the scorpion pits -We need a Scorpion Pit.
Just a word or several from a newer member. I agree with the idea of longtime,mature, and knowledgeable members as moderators. Also agree that Cliff should have say on final form of setting up this, appointment,election, whaterever. He's been doing it for a long time and I suspect knows what works best, and probably has a feel for who is best qualified. I've read threads that I would think members were fighting, turns out they are good friends and just having a good time. I also think that the "user agreement" is neccesary. Most of the forums or oranizations have them and they work well. You're right ogre, they are to cover your own a**, but in this day of frivolous lawsuits, they give you a leg to stand on anyway. The thing to keep in mind is: 99.9% of the members are trustworthy and will abide by whatever policy goes into effect. Ya can get a feel of what people are like just by their comments, especially in OT. I recently bought a part from a member I've never personnaly met and sent cash as payment without hesitation, and would do so with most anyone on here. Good luck guys. Thanks for the efforts Don & Jane
------------------ 84 SE 2.5 not slow not fast-just halfast
Cliff can take nominations if he wants, but HE should pick. It's HIS forum. We are his GUESTS. If people would have had that attitude from the beginning, we wouldn't need moderators.
ABSOLUTELY AMAZING to me that a couple of the CAUSES for needing moderators would have the guts to post on this thread! And one of them couldn't even keep on topic on this thread.
Darn. Just when I thought I knew what to do, you guys come about and destroy it all with very good points...
Seriously, you all do bring up some very good points both against and in favor of moderators. First of all, let me repeat what I've been saying since I started the forum: "I don't like the idea of moderators". Second, let me repeat something I said recently: "I don't have the time to read every single post on the forum". In the first two years of PFF's existence, this appeared to be no problem at all because the forum was pretty much self-moderating.
But as PFF gets more and more members, it gets increasingly difficult trying to follow all the threads and moderating them in such a way as not to pee of too many members.
Having additional moderators will lighten my burden, but will not solve the problem at hand. And I would have to moderate the moderators. I don't moderate this forum using a fixed rule set, but rather by using a little common sense. And I'm sure my idea of "common sense" can be quite different than someone else's.
Perhaps I should try something simple first, like adding a button that when clicked, automatically sends me a notification that attention is needed on a particular thread (as some of you suggested). We could try this before doing something as drastical as adding moderators. I believe it is true that one of this forum's charms is the fact that it's being moderated in such a loose way. It has a pretty high tolerance threshold. Sometimes a bit too high, but that's entirely my own fault.
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: Perhaps I should try something simple first, like adding a button that when clicked, automatically sends me a notification that attention is needed on a particular thread (as some of you suggested).
I think that this idea is a good move. It should tone down some of the worst threads and not be the huge hassle that the moderator elections would cause. I don't know the limitations of the software, but would it be possible to lock users out of specific topics? Or would that just cause more problems?
That system sounds nifty, but be sure to tie it to login/user, and have an "are you sure" to protect against spastic clickers like myself. I'd also like to say that yes, the free-form moderation here is very nice. The button might be a very good idea.
Well,,, I reread a big chunk of this thread again today....
I don't think we need many moderators. However, as we get bigger, the system is already well beyond what one person can easily manage. I'm having trouble just keeping up with the Tech section allot of days. I'd be here all night trying to read all the threads in all the forums.
A "pager" kind of button that brings threads to Cliff/Moderator attention wouln't be a bad idea at all. The pager button should only work for registered users and should log who pushed it. I like the idea of the confirm dialog. It's way to easy to click a spot when you didn't mean to.
An advantage to having at least a couple additional moderators is that there would be more coverage durring difrant parts of the day. Cliff is here at certain times of the planet rotation, east coast people are here others and pacific people are here late. Just one or two additional moderators would greatly expand coverage if they are selected carefully. In this case, If the "pager" button emails all the moderators the odds increase that one of them may actually be online to read the message.
Well I just found this thread and have read thru all the pros and cons. Many folks have valid points both for and against moderators. Since it has been pointed out that the threads that get out of hand are not that often, Maybe the "button" idea could be just what is needed. Maybe we could work something out along the lines of having patrolling moderators. Instead of having the moderators locking threads and such we could just agree to have a list of members who when a thread gets out of hand make some kind of standard post to warn those that it is not following guide lines. I'm sure tht this would diffuse most of the threads. If the thread persists the moderator can bring it to Cliff's attention for proper action. If the thread starts off with a bad/improper title then we can bring it to Cliff's attention right away. One more thing, Cliff would it be possible to have the thread "suspended" when the button is pressed? I don't know if it's feasable but just suspending it until you get a chance to review it may let tempers calm down also.
Hmm Cliff I think you should research some of the people nominated to see if they ever posted anything offensive...(well just look at a couple posts though their time here) and also do like a little interview for them and maybe even cheak and see there average time here on the forum per day - and how many times they are on a day (I know I am on 5+ times a day just cause i have no life hehe) well here are my nominations: stimpy theogre Oreif Cheever2 rockcrawl 88CoupeV6 bHooper Thats all I can think of currently...
I don't know what to say now. A lot has already been....
I am a free speech maven, as you may know, but I also stand in for personal responsibility. As such, I've probably upset my share of people here. Sometimes, it's difficult to balance the two, i.e.: it's easy to censor yourself around your children, but, whenin a forum such as this, you run the risk of turning everyone else into your "children," not only censoring yourself, but others, as well.
I agree that we should be able to talk about controversial subjects in PFF, esp. in O/T. For some, rebodying a Fiero may be just as offensive to some as abortion is to others. Yet we must remain agreeable in our disagreement, as we are, as has been stated before, Cliff's guests. Unfortunately, you bicker with your friends, you bicker with your family, and you bicker with your neighbors. The last thing we need is Pennock's Fiero Police State. Or Pennock's State of Fiero Anarchy. We all need to be self moderators, so that Cliff (and whomever he may appoint) doesn't have to keep cleaning up after us.
I vote for TOS, as long as it is a basic civility agreement, and, if necessary, stopping my ability to post in the future until I click agreement to it. Come to think of it, that's what I clicked on when I first found the forum, at //www.fiero.nl/forum
All good stuff here. theogre brought up a very good point about time differences. Cliff, I think you still need a bit of help just to help from having to deal with stuff before your first cup of coffee. I think having the report button send email to Cliff and 2 other moderators is a great idea. Moderators should be appointed. I've seen the beginnings of campaigning already and I think Archie was right on target with where that will go. They should only have the ability to close a thread until Cliff has time to review and make the final decision.
Archie brought up a good point about the damage being done to a thread by others. Maybe in these situations Cliff (not Moderators) could edit the contents of the offending post and replace it with a *Removed by Admin* disclaimer and reopen the thread.
Finally, there may be people from time to time than need banned. Troublemakers tend to drive 'law abiding citizens' away. If this happens often enough you are left with nothing but troublemakers. This of course should remain solely at Cliff's discretion.
O.K., here's my spin. 1.At the time you sign up to become a member, there should be some required reading (On what you can post and what is not tolerated) Perhaps even a Acknowledge button,just in case. 2.Cliff picks 1 or 2 members per list to monitor threads.(provided they voluntered for it) Those members would keep an eye out,and if nessarary make Cliff aware of something questionable.
This way Cliff still is the one who gets to make the decision on what happens on his forum,but wouldn't have to read every single topic in order to stay on top of it all.
Orief, a problem that I forsee with the idea that you suggested regarding "suspending" the thread, bringing it to Cliff's attention for his final decision.
For example, the threads like the "FieroLisa" thread which is now 21+ pages long (just got on and I am getting caught up here first ) would be time consuming at best to go through all 21+ pages to determine if it hurting anyone specificially. There may be a couple of flame wars to begin with, however, they may have resolved themselves and the flow may be more positive then negative to humourouse as it is. Somebody that see's a flame who is not familiar with what is going on, or where it may eventually lead like this thread has overtime (positive and humourse) may inadvertently shut it down.
To me, that would be like cutting off the legs of your child who you want to start walking and when they finally do take those first steps, you stop them before they can go any further because you are afraid they will either start running, trip and hurt themselves (negative) or take up running all the time as a career move (positive).
Originally posted by JSocha: Does that make sense????
Yes it makes sense but you must remeber if any thread, regardless how many pages, suddenly gets "out of hand", the thread would be suspended at the point it got out of hand. Then you would just need to go to the last post and read back to see who or where it started. Also the average thread is probably closer to 2 pages and threads that require being locked or deleted can usually be identified in the first page. The other thing is if the thread is a large one, the moderator would most likely follow up with an email to Cliff and can note which page of the thread the problem is located on.
As for someone who is unfamiliar with what is going on in the thread could mistake the general attitude of those that are participating. That is why I suggested a "suspension" rather than a lock or a delete.
Like Ogre said, there are actually very few threads that get out of hand, I'm sure the moderator of the O/T section would understand the type of humor and would watch large threads to keep an understanding of the general feelings. I have seen a few threads where people flamed each other and within a few more posts they resolved it. But they never got out of hand. Finally, The moderator would post a "warning" or such type of statement before the suspension which I think would calm some tempers or at least those that are engaged in a heated flame would pause and think about what they type. In my opinion the "warning/statement" would most likely diffuse the flames resulting in less locked threads.
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: I agree that we should be able to talk about controversial subjects in PFF, esp. in O/T... Yet we must remain agreeable in our disagreement, as we are, as has been stated before, Cliff's guests.
I'm sure this has been said before, but let me put in my $.02 ($10 Canadian). Disagreement, even on controversial subjects is fine and should not be cause for closing/banning/etc. What should be eliminated is personnel attacks and deliberately inflammatory statements. In other words, you can express your opinion no matter what it may be, as long as you can do so in a polite and reasonable manner.
In other words, I may not like what you have to say, and I may post words to that effect, but it should be apparent that I still respect that you have your opinion and are free to express it. Personal liberties can only exist where people have the self restraint to excersize them (Which is why I now worry about the world my kids will grow up in....). We agree to disagree on certain subjects, continue to love our Fieros, and don't sock each other in the eye when we meet at an event (or just on the street).
Understood Oreif . Just being part of the proverbial "Think Tank" and every once in a while playing "Devils Advocate".
I agree that many threads start out harsh and turn to a more positive outcome. For instance/example, 84Bill (HI!) and I got into a little debate, regarding...well...seatbelts. In the end though, I stil respect him and his opinions regarding the use of them and if I ever met him in person, I would probably lay him flat on the ground...with all the beers I would end up buying him.
So, I feel that yes, the areas of the forum are self moderating over all. A little over seeing to ensure that Cliff can sit back and relax while others handle to ensure it doesn't get out of hand may or may not be needed.
Or perhaps, the ability to ban certain "jerks" based on an overall consenses by other members banning all together to say that a specific individual is not bringing anything worth while to the forum, even if ends up being me may or again, may not be needed.
I also feel strongly, along with the others, that a membership fee to this formum would help both by keeping out the riff-raff and defraying some of the costs of this site.
I'm thinking that moderators aren't a priority, since yes, problems are few and far between. I do welcome anything that makes my PFF experience more wholesome (E.G., Galen's ressurection of the Pyschotic Straberry). Any implementation that would reduce the already low problem rate can only be a good thing. As long as you play nice, how does it affect you?
I really like the "page moderator" button, regardless if Cliff creates minions. (Like onions, only faster)
Oh gods, am I tired. I'm going to bed. I hope I haven't offended anyone in my last few posts *yawn* G'night
Well, I don't post much anymore. I use my PPF cd a lot for mechanical things lately though. Anything that will make your workload lighter Cliff is great in my book. Thanx for the space
------------------ 86 SE I'm addicted and proud of it Kevin
You're forgetting, dogtired. It's supposed to be both of us running together. I'll be making the campaign posters next weekend and I think I've already got a spot on Good Morning, America for the following week.
"If I'm elected as your next President, I promise to blah, blah, blah."
------------------ 'Consciousness: That annoying time between naps.'
Well, I would like to say that I officially throw my hat in the ring. I don't have any disagreements with any forum members, I've been here for a little while & god knows no one spends more time here then me. (Just check out my post times ) If I can help Cliff let me know. I check just about every post at least 10 times a day... (Yes I have NO life)
------------------ Click above to visit my website.
