patricia

Now we have the condensed version. Was it good for you? I'm not being sarcastic or judging you, nor am I shocked. I'm sure that the provider of this service to you was none the wiser and you have this fond memory. So, it's all good. Is this the first time you've related that strange experience?? The upside is that at least you didn't have to stay and be compelled to talk to the woman, if indeed it was a woman. Are you sure it was? If it wasn't, that would put a whole different spin on the incident. Just asking. I understand that there are some experiences which you, and other posters may want to relate, but to a select group. Viewers may be presented with a side of you which you would rather not reveal to those who may be surprised to read of this facet of your personality. Do I make you uncomfortable?? That's certainly not my intention. I post the way I talk and nobody who knows me has ever accused me of being judgemental, or easily shocked. I may post a comment, but assuming that I'm judging is not fair to me.

To Deus62, First of all, have a great birthday!!! I HAVE read every post. The reason I asked if there had been complaints was the seeming over-reaction of our thread-originator. I have read every comment including the ones which B-3 posted and was just asking for clarification. In his post he said that he hadn't been keeping up. I happen to think that objections to any posts can usually be handled by a rebuttal post directed at the one whose views are opposed. My flurry of bios were not cut and paste. I don't know how to do that. FWIW they were condensations of material at hand, boring to some, interesting to others. No matter. I took them out because this is the domain of our thread originator. He determines the direction the thread takes and I respect that. I was doing some cage-rattling of my own. My apologies have already been extended. Whether or not a TREEHOUSE THREAD, with a NO OPPOSING VIEWS OR POSTERS WELCOME sign is nailed on the treetrunk comes into being is up to the web-Czars. I'm not railing at the heavens here.

Hate to be a downer, but the smoke [or I guess more accurately the nicotine] becomes part of the cover, if it's cardboard. If you've ever smoked and then, after having quit, tried to rid your living space of the effects of it, you will know what I mean. Even if you wash all the curtains and windows, have the furniture and rug steam-cleaned, scrub down all your walls, wash, or dryclean all your clothes and thoroughly clean everything in your space, there are things which you can't really clean. Two of them, unfortunately, are your books, except for the covers and your record sleeves. What I did was use a damp cloth, with a solution of about 1 part to 10 of ammonia and water, wrung out and lightly wiped all the surfaces. That's probably as good as anything. It may not get all of it, but it'll get some of it. Don't use detergent, because it attracts dust. For your CD cases, you should be able to wash them, by hand, with detergent and water, with a wrung-out cloth. Then get another wrung-out cloth, this time, no detergent, and wipe them again, until all the scum is gone. Hope that helps. Worked for me. You actually have an easier job than I did, because my stuff was in my apartment and I was the smoker, until a few months ago.

I think you mean "elicit," Patty. Your word should be used as in the following example: DEEP enjoys ILLICIT pleasures. I blush and will edit. Thanks. I should know better. All I can say is that my wineglass was on my dictionary. Ooops. Given your example, it was a natural, almost Freudian slip kind of error, don't you think??

Conn, Conn, Conn, Don't ever underestimate my ability to piss off any number, be it small or large, of people. DEEP Well, then you should be happy as a porcine, up to it's haunches in solid waste. The thread on which you have already restricted yourself has had minimum interferance in it's flow of ideas, as far as I can see. If your desire is to elicit fear and loathing, wouldn't you want the most widespread audience as you could possibly have? How could you do that, if only people who think the same way about various issues are allowed to post on this proposed TREEHOUSE THREAD?? Nothing more uninteresting, I would think, as a group of people who all think pretty well the same thing. You'll get whiplash, nodding your collective heads in agreement, posting "WORD" after every post. One question for B-3 and the other site Honchos. Have there been complaints about this thread, the "Olive Branch" thread, which would cause you consternation??

dEUS (BAG), Don't wanna waste a lotta time doin' that. I'd rather AGITATE, INSTIGATE..[/size]...AND PRACTICE ...NOT. DEEP So, if that's your aim, you already have your forum. How many people would you agitate and how much controversy could you instigate among a small, select group of like-minded individuals, whose comments can't stand the occasional scrutiny of other Organissimo posters, even if they choose to leave without posting, or interacting? As I suggested earlier, there are already hundreds of websites devoted to those with fringe interests. One has only to search for them. Try using a key word or phrase, which refers to your particular interest. But you already know that I'm sure.

The company that sponsored it (I can't remember thier name) sold out or merged and the new owners wern't interested in a site. Sorry, PATTY, it just wasn't because the place was a bore, like you had hoped. It was happenin' but the new conglomerate wasn't interested in Jazz. DEEP I didn't say that I thought that the reason it doesn't exist anymore was that it was boring. Had I thought that, I would have said that. It was an honest question and I believe that you answered my question. I'm sure that the discussions were lively and provocative and I certainly wasn't suggesting that they weren't. My point still stands, regarding anonymity and you replied as I hoped you would. I know that you do not hide behind anonymity and I have little respect for anyone who does. You know me well enough to know that.

If JCS was as great as everyone says it was, with it's CHAIR and all, why did it swirl down the bowl?? Seems like a paridise, often referred to by those who posted there. So, what happened to it??

Such a thing would require far more programming knowledge than I have. Isn't anonymity the last bastion for the cowardly, whose ideas would never be expressed, if they had to stand behind them and defend them?? That's the kind of atmosphere which is the basis for organizations like the KKK and the garden-variety ugly mob, isn't it?? If you're not standing alone, in your own face, you're somehow invisible. Then anything you say wasn't really said by you? Are there people here who can't stand behind their ideas and take ownership of them??

So, you do understand what I'm saying. I don't have my foot in the door. I am not arguing that I demand to be allowed to be insulted. I'm not a prissy schoolmarm and if anybody thinks that this board is peopled by posters who are so thin-skinned that they are going to be shocked and disgusted by anything, then it's not the group I want to be a part of. I'm not posting from a convent, or the Baptist Women's Embroidery Society. I don't think that anyone who is familiar with my style thinks that I am a restrictor of ideas, or a monkeywrench in the works. I'm not sure what the problem is, but it is baffling to me. As I say, we're grownups here, aren't we?? IMO, dealing with objections to comments on a particular board should be handled by the poster of the objected to material, on the spot and then move on. The worst that can happen is..............what?? Actually, Patty, although this will bring down the LOOK OF DOOM from DEEP, I would prefer that things stay the same. I'm quite comfortable with the current arrangements. But you have to work this out with DEEP. I think he feels that he's some kind of target under the current system. Oh, I don't think that's true. I'm not afraid of anyone's LOOK OF DOOM He can *handle himself* very well, even in difficult circumstances, although it is a rather disturbing habit about which he really should see a professional. Many times I have suggested volatility therapy, perhaps with a bunch of Italian guys.

So, you do understand what I'm saying. I don't have my foot in the door. I am not arguing that I demand to be allowed to be insulted. I'm not a prissy schoolmarm and if anybody thinks that this board is peopled by posters who are so thin-skinned that they are going to be shocked and disgusted by anything, then it's not the group I want to be a part of. I'm not posting from a convent, or the Baptist Women's Embroidery Society. I don't think that anyone who is familiar with my style thinks that I am a restrictor of ideas, or a monkeywrench in the works. I did ask for clarification of one post that you are aware and there was a clarification. If a poster's ideas were made merely to titillate, and don't stand scrutiny, there is no reason that they shouldn't be called on them. I'm not sure what the problem is, but it is baffling to me. As I say, we're grownups here, aren't we?? IMO, dealing with objections to comments on a particular board should be handled by the poster of the objected to material, on the spot and then move on. The worst that can happen is..............what??

Problem with that, DEEP, is that you would end up ruling out new blood like, say, GROPE. If a secret thread already existed, how would new posters like GROPE learn about it? Conn (a linguist), Is there a football game on and you're speed reading?? Extracted from my post:It would then be left to the select few to pass on the info to trustworthy constituents. In short: Posters would have to prove themselves worthy of admission. WOW !! Patty, I think you're missing a few participles in that run-on sentence re Gerbil Insertion. That horseshit came from one boring asshole poster at the WOD's named Thelil..one of the most unfunny cats ever to frequent a website. DEEP Maybe a bad example. My intent was to ask whether this proposed thread would be like a "Hustler" of the site. There are already plenty of sites which cater to those who want to discuss every kind of "hot" subjects and those whose interest is piqued by them already know about them and frequent them. If you want to have a special room to discuss subjects I have no interest in, I won't post, nor, I assume will anyone else who has nothing to contribute. What is this need that some seem to have to have somewhere that they can talk about things that they obviously consider so vile that it's assumed that everyone will be shocked and disgusted by them?? Has this suddenly turned into a prospective haven for what some consider a world of depravity, to which only the chosen few would have access to exchange ideas???? This presupposes that you and a dozen or so others, who already post on the site already would let loose with language and ideas which are too terrible for any but them to deal with. My original comment stands and that is that if a subject doesn't interest a member, they don't have to post on the thread. How difficult is that??? The RESTRICTED TREEHOUSE concept, in itself, is offensive to me, but I am not the one who determines how the site is run. For the record, I have never objected to any subject matter discussed on any board to anyone but the poster. This business of whining to the board administrators strikes me as cowardly and unnecessary. You disagree, you rebut, directly to the person whose views oppose your own. Just like in real life.

I'm curious. What is it, besides the, over-worked already on another site, subject of gerbil insertions is just so volatile that those who aren't interested can't just not click on it??

Somehow Patty, I think DEEP's X-rated corner will get all the hits. You guys would end up really crocheting. Of course it would. My suggestion was meant, as you know, to be facetious. Some people though, just love to be a vulgarity policeman and I fail to see the sense of that. If a prospective poster clicks on a thread and they are offended, why don't they just go to another one??? There are dozens which don't offend them. I just don't think that a "restricted" thread would make much sense. But, as I say, what do I know???? I grew up in a household where nothing was off-limits to me and if whatever it was didn't interest me I just left it alone. This puritanical layer of present society is quite puzzling to me, even childish, but, again, what do I know?? I'm shocked by the fact that the same people who tolerate violence, even glory in it, seem to be the ones who object to nudity and sex, as if we are not all human beings and are all naked under our clothes. Good grief!! Lighten up. If somebody posts something that is truly grotesque, the other posters will call them on it. Treat us like adults. Don't feel that we are children who need to be protected. There's enough of that in the other areas of our lives.

I'm curious as to why I was singled out as the restricting factor in the exchange of comments. Anyone who knows me knows that although I may not use the same language as some of our saltier posters, I've never objected to them using whatever language they feel will best express their thoughts. We're all adults here, aren't we?? I fail to see the problem that everyone seems to be wrestling with.

Why must we be catagorized as either straight-laced prisses, or far-more-fun vulgarites. Isn't there a middle ground?? As far as I can see, Organnisimo is not restricitive, except in expecting those who post on a thread do so, and leave themselves open to rebuttal. There is no reason that any poster HAS to read or post on any particular thread and there are plenty of others. A thread that attracts no interest will sink like a stone and disappear. What's the problem with an offended poster just posting on another, more acceptable to them thread?? I think that using the Elks Club, or the YMCA is not a good example of an organization which tolerates EVERYTHING. It would be difficult to find one which does. I don't believe that men, just because they are men are essentially foul-mouthed jerks. But, what do I know??.............

Oh shoot, gosh darn it all, what in H E double L am I to do? I guess I'll just have to clean up my act. DEEP Ah, the restrictions of a civilized society. H-E-double hockey-sticks. So, I guess my asking for my own thread, to discuss with the other chickies, the intricacies of crocheting doilies is out of the question. PHOOEY!!!!

If I might respectfully make a suggestion. The perhaps slightly civilizing effect that just knowing that there is a chickie who may post is worth noting. I don't think that I am hobbling those who wish to participate in an interesting exchange, although I suppose that that is a matter of opinion. I have no intention of exaserpating a problem, should one arise and it is a simple thing, given the number of threads, for me to excuse myself, although I usually don't find that necessary. I don't think that I have ever been the one who posts in a shocked, Great Aunt Hattie the saintly lady of the Salvation Army manner. B-3 is the CZAR of the site and has the final word and I think that is as it should be. In any case.........................

Now that we're all agreed on who we're NOT, lets move on. For the record I am almost positive I'm still me, though there were a scary few moments that I was almost sure I was Mamie Van Doren. THAT was a relief!! Everybody check their driver's licenses and their mirrors. If the pictures match, then everything is copacetic. ONWARD!!!!

What if your drivers license and the image in the mirror are you but you're not? You gotta consider ALL the possibilities these days. Ever thought of writing for the X-files, Jim? Or better yet, start up the Twilight Zone all over again. I wondered about that. Am I asleep or awake?? Should I go to work?? Insanity is a distinct possibility. ZOUNDS AND GADZOOKS !!!

You're much taller, and better looking than I thought you were, B-3er. Ah yes. JAZZ. Our collective passion. That's what brought us here, where we discovered that we have lives too. Carry on...........

I hereby snatch back my post, regarding the acknowledgement of your gratitude for my vote of confidence from Conn and present it to you. Checked my mirror, then checked my driver's license and compared the two. I'm me. Whew.

Patty, You mean you're claiming to be the GROPE too?! Isn't everyone???? Apparently, there are only a couple of REAL posters and the rest are well-crafted, figments of their imagination. Who has that kind of free time?? Why am I thinking of a puppet show with one puppeteer, going crazy, trying to keep the strings and the characters separate?? Keeping the voices and personalities separate is too much trouble and pointless, at least in my view. If it were true, they are to be pitied, or blamed gently. Why bother?? .......... I was referring to your earlier post thanking me for my vote of confidence, but I don't see it now. Am I finally losing my mind??

Conn, You're welcome. My duty as I saw it.

Although it's true that through various machinations, one person can wear several site identity hats, who has the time, or the inclination?? It does give one pause though, that there are pocket-protecter-wearing geeks, with no lives who do that. I will bet all the folding currency at my immediate disposal, about thirty dollars or so, that it's not true on this thread. We all have lives. "A Nice Bunch Of Guys" indeed.