Oh CRUD!

[Keith]

Ron seems to have made me Paddock Spokesperson, and, he would like a consensus (not that he needs it - he's just being polite) on the idea that Paddock becomes subs only, not visible to the 'public'.

Your thoughts are welcome.

My thoughts are - what's the difference? I suppose there would be a separate login but that's it. I never had any sense that it was 'public' anyway, although certain 'mission focused' posters may have used that attribute. I don't know.

In some ways, it's a great accolade!

In others, it's a defeat of reason, as those most offended by the Paddock never post in it. I don't get that but I wouldn't want to be the cause if any grief to anyone (which is not in the spirit of true WOGGism - I may have to resign.)

What say you? First 10 answers form a quorum and will be considered as representative of the community.

Pete - you is Oz & Kiwi co-ordination 'cos of time zones. I ain't insulting ya dude!

 

[Jack]

I don't give a rat's patootie, whichever, whatever.

 

[Keith]

Grumpy sod.....:furious:

 

[Keith]

But thank you for your erudite response

Next?

 

[Jack]

Just getting to my morning coffee!

 

[Jack]

Yesterday, I was awarded a great honor. My Mrs. presented me with the
"Order of the Equine Fundament with Uplifted Appendage"! More recognition...

 

[Larry L.]

"...those most offended by the Paddock never post in it."

They could simply choose not to enter it thereby eliminating their angst. Once they've found it "offensive" why would they feel the need to 'visit' thereafter anyway? As you stated, it's not all that "public" right now...and, "enter at your own risk", is clearly posted already.

But, just speaking for my own darned self, it really makes no diff to me whether there's a separate login or not. 'Way I see it, we're all just 'visitors' here anyway. Those 'in charge' of the site obviously have the right to set things up however they see fit...and, in general, it's probably not good policy for the inmates to have a say in how the asylum should be run anyway!

JMHO.

 

[Larry L.]

Yesterday, I was awarded a great honor. My Mrs. presented me with the
"Order of the Equine Fundament with Uplifted Appendage"! More recognition...

On second thought, maybe there ought to at least be a 'truthfulness' standard of some kind imposed 'round here! :rolleyes2:

 

[Keith]

"...those most offended by the Paddock never post in it."

They could simply choose not to enter it thereby eliminating their angst. Once they've found it "offensive" why would they feel the need to 'visit' thereafter anyway? As you stated, it's not all that "public" right now...and, "enter at your own risk", is clearly posted already.

But, just speaking for my own darned self, it really makes no diff to me whether there's a separate login or not. 'Way I see it, we're all just 'visitors' here anyway. Those 'in charge' of the site obviously have the right to set things up however they see fit...and, in general, it's probably not good policy for the inmates to have a say in how the asylum should be run anyway!

JMHO.

So you say, but I have just been given the keys mate, or rather, they've been lobbed in my general direction. The problem is, as I understand it, that it is not technically possible for the forum to load hiding the Paddock completely from view, and I guess a train wreck is a train wreck, yes?

 

[Larry L.]

...it is not technically possible for the forum to load hiding the Paddock completely from view...

Well then, shoot, technology has made the 'need' for any debate on the subject irrelevant, has is it not?

...I guess a train wreck is a train wreck, yes?

Unquestionably!

 

[Keith]

Irrelevant to a degree but not for that reason. This is an issue that has been rumbling for, well, since the Paddock began. What we're faced with now, if I have my in-between-line reader adjusted correctly is: "Time is about to be called on the Paddock. It will be switched off completely unless you all agree to have a separate secured forum on subscription only."

So, Hobsons choice but, it's not our forum anyway and, I can see why it might be able to affect viewers of greater sensitivity plus of course, has nothing whatever to do with the subject Forum.

To be quite fair, Ron has been very relaxed about this. As a died-in-the-wool WOGG, I'm not sure I would have been, in his place.

I guess what I see here now, is THREE IN FAVOUR! :thumbsup:

WE need more views though. C'mon...

 

[Larry L.]

"Time is about to be called on the Paddock. It will be switched off completely unless you all agree to have a separate secured forum on subscription only."

Well, for cryin' out th' window, Keith, that would have been helpful to know right from the get-go, now, wouldn't it!

Regardless, as I said before, I'm 'for' whatever the powers-that-be decide they want to do. 'Makes absolutely NO difference to me whatsoever.

 

[Keith]

If you had have been keeping up Laryy, instead of sitting there polishing your dentures, you would have know this has been an issue for years. In any event, you have miss quoted me as that sentence should be qualified by the "reading between the lines" bit, which means, it's a kind of educated speculation not fact! :laugh:

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Fine with me. Anything to keep all this fun going. Don't cut me off from all this brilliant repartee, is all I ask. Beg. Whatever. It's the intellectual equivalent of bangers and mash for breakfast. Far better than the Golden Arches.

 

[Ian Anderson]

Jim
I share your sentaments.
Please keep this area going. I'd pony up an annual subscription just for this banter!

Now I had a quick look and it would appear most people who post in the Paddock are contributors to the site anyway.

Politics I can take it or leave it - to me it appears the American community is really polarised and will never agree - no so much elsewhere in the world. But I have also learned a lot from these "spats"

Have I upset people on here - more than likely! But likewise I can think of a few that would not be on my christmas card list!

My vote is to keep the paddock - subscription only works too

Ian
Founding UK Charter Keeper Infinite Noble Greatness ---White Old Grumpy Guy

 

[Larry L.]

If you had have been keeping up Laryy, instead of sitting there polishing your dentures, you would have know this has been an issue for years. In any event, you have miss quoted me as that sentence should be qualified by the "reading between the lines" bit, which means, it's a kind of educated speculation not fact! :laugh:

May the lice of 10,000 camels grow and fester in your arm pits.

May a herd of diseased yaks take up permanent residence in your domicile.

May your vehicle break down 500 miles from civilization...on the first day of a 4 day weekend...in a torrential downpour...at midnight...in a 'no cell service' zone...and may you hear the theme from "Deliverance" playing softly in the distance.

('Apologies to Johnny Carson where appropriate...)

 

[craig]

All this over nothing, I vote leave it alone.....next thing you know we'll be changing the names of our favorite sports teams to pacify small groups of babies.....

 

[Bob Fechter]

I see they've decided that if they can't control the raging forrest fire, they'll sell tickets to the public to roast their weenies next to it.

How about they initiate a fee for the "sand in their pussy" ninnies for the privilege of trying to get posters they hate banned?

 

[craig]

It'll be like a kid trying to get on a porn site...but harder..

 

[Bob Fechter]

It'll be like a kid trying to get on a porn site but harder..

I can just see it now! The Colonel Mustard Review, "step right up, and don't be shy."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ_k_VG6Syc]The Tubes - She's A Beauty - YouTube[/ame]