posted
I am posting this here because these problems are more notable on this side.
The first and greatest problem is the degree of cruelty shown to new members by old ones, even after they have stayed for some time. This is, of course, not true of all members, but it is too prevalent to ignore.
The second is the tendency of some members to react immaturely and rudely to people whose views they disagree with. Calling someone a troll, a jackass, or anything similar neither impresses others with your rhetorical skills nor proves your point, quite the opposite in fact.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Welcome to the internet, you would think a forum with people that are discussing literature and things they enjoy wouldn't be the same as the rest but hey this is tame compared to others I visit.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I know that I'm taking your bait, but I just wanted to let you know that if you've chosen this week to be named as the "Most Aggressively Obtuse and Belligerent Hatracker of the Week", I think you've won.
No need to try any harder and you might want to let someone else vie for next week's title.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sean, look at Ornery, one of OSC's other fora, the difference is striking, there is much more respect, even though the issues are more serious.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LadyDove, I am unafraid of expressing my opinions but I do not think I have been rude in doing so; however, many try to assume rudeness where none belongs, and the simple question of "are Mormons allowed caffeine?" managed to get me accused of rudeness, insensitivity, religious intolerance and being "a jackass." If my question was rude, then I must admit, that, in my life, I am seldom polite. I do not, however believe it to have been rude, and am surprised, shocked actually, at the response that that thread generated. There has, in fact, been a degree of personal animosity directed towards me, perhaps partially based on an ill-advised post made some time ago, which makes it difficult for me to say anything without being either ignored or flamed, a fact which you have so perfectly illustrated in your ad hominem attack, which, as far as I can tell, shows no evidence of you having read anything having been posted.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually i've always found hatrack to be the best forum on the web. And as to newbies. Many of them get hellos, welcomes, and happy little waving emoticons when they join. I know i did. So lead by example(not saying your not) and just say hello and be freindly to all newbies.
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with your "caffeine" question was not that it was asked. It was that you had assumed a serious flaw where a minor incident, if you were correct and you weren't, would be closer to the truth. It wasn't a simple question as much as an accusitory snicker.
Besides that, I actually agree with your assesment of Hatrack.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I did read your posts and in an attempt to not ignore you, decided to respond. As I stated, I knew I was taking your bait. You seem to be trying so hard to be difficult, that I half assume that this is not all that you have to offer.
If it is all that you have to offer and you were not trying to be difficult, then I apologize and will remove my post if it offends you.
You know, I've noticed that newbies who come in and immediately start accusing people of things, making assumptions about the beliefs of others, etc., etc., get treated with a lot less respect than those who come in and say, "Hey, I'm new. I'm a big fan of OSC, I'm glad to be here!" and then try to courteously ask their questions or join in discussion with respect and concern for the feelings and beliefs of others-- and a good, healthy sense of humor. (Or even skip the "Hi, I'm new," but keep the respect/concern/humor part intact.) Just an observation. *looks down and goes back to eating her potato chips and ketchup*
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing I have noticed is an abundance of smart, witty people who occaisonally say things which they no doubt think are incredibly smart and witty and, of course, harmless, but are misinterpretted. Pelegius, would you rather those smart witty people, who make Hatrack so very attractive to me, go away, so we can have a forum filled with people who regularly misunderstand humor? And please please please, do not misinterpret that remark as smart or witty, but simply as a question which I am interested in hearing you address.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, I would never consider the consumption of a caffeinated beverage to a serious offense, nor do I believe that people should be judged on past misdeeds, real or imaginary. I had thought that such things were prohibited to Mormons and that this was one of the reasons that OSC stopped drinking Coke. The word "transgression," was, from the start, intended to be ironic in its hyperbole. I see that my mistake was a classic incident of the stranger in a strange land making a taboo remark. Coming as I do from a culture where caffeine is not so much consumed as celebrated, I had underestimated the seriousness of its taboo status among some, although clearly not all, Mormons. I feel as though there is some controversy within the LDS Church which I have unwittingly not only uncovered but become surrounded by. Hopefully, I shall not awake to human and drown in the seas of a controversy in which I have no stake.
Dr Stranglove, I would settle for a better understanding of irony.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you continue in your present course, I feel confident that you'll understand irony within a few weeks.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess. And in this it is not likely that all are mistaken: the conviction is rather to be held as testifying that the power of judging aright and of distinguishing truth from error, which is properly what is called good sense or reason, is by nature equal in all men; and that the diversity of our opinions, consequently, does not arise from some being endowed with a larger share of reason than others, but solely from this, that we conduct our thoughts along different ways, and do not fix our attention on the same objects.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very nice ... I happen to have a copy next to me and thought it was fitting. A fan of Descartes specifically or philosophy in general?
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I took a philosophy class as an undergrad, where the prof spent the whole semester telling us why Descartes was pure evil. I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember that quote. I think it found its way into a paper I wrote.
Posts: 234 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, oh well. I find him fascinating. Not necessarily correct on everything, but incredibly thought provoking, which in my opinion is the mark of a good philosopher. Now should we commence talking about the merits of philosophy classes, further derailing this thread from it's original purpose?
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine by me, I'm an expert at derailing threads, though I usually do so with food.
I am a grad student in history, but as an undergrad I took two different philosophy classes, neither of which I liked particularly. One was an honor's class, that was about the workings of the mind and the nature of reality, and the other was a philosophy of religion class that was annoying both because of the tedious teacher and the 8:00 am time slot.
Have you taken any enjoyable philosophy classes?
Posts: 234 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, no, I've never taken a philosophy class, because I have a feeling I would get incredibly annoyed listening to a teacher spout off about something which tends to be, by its very nature, conjecture and opinion. I don't mind philosophical discussions but almost all of my professors have been of the kind who will say "This is how it is, agree with me or get an F". And I have a feeling I would not agree with at least some of the prof's views, which would end up in a bad grade for me, which I would rather not search out. I've been reading philosophy since I was 8 and have quite a few friends who have taken the classes and debate with me without the grading aspect of it.
Oddly enough, I've been looking for you. I'm technically a high school student (I'm 17) but will be graduating a local community college with my AA at the end of this semester. I'm planning on transferring to a four year university and and majoring in History, which is the only thing which has consistently caught my interest over the years. I've been told the only way a History degree is useful is if you get a graduate degree in it, so I plan on doing that as soon as possible. Do you have any advice for a future History major?
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots of advice, I actually used to be a peer advisor in the history department at usu.
1. A history degree is both always useful and never useful. By which I mean, it will help you learn to think about the world in new ways, you will become a better analytical thinker, a better writer (but not speller, sorry) and lots of other good things. BUT, even with a masters you aren't actually qualified to do anything--so it is never helpful in getting a job.
2. History is a good gateway degree, particularly for those law school bound. It teaches research and writing skills that provide a good back ground for law. It is also possible to teach history in High school, but only if you like teaching as well as history or you will burn out and become bitter and unhappy.
3. If you do want to go the graduate school-->professor route, be aware that the job market is not just bad, it is abysmal. For some fields of study, there literally are no job openings ANYWHERE in the world. So this route is only for those who are willing to accept seven years of stress and hard work followed by a realization that you are back where you started as far as job prospects. Even if you do get a job the pay seriously sucks.
ok, but if you do want to do this regardless of my warning (and you can't say you weren't warned) I have advice for the graduate school bound history major: 1. Don't go to a huge university for undergrad--such as Ohio State or UT-Austin, they have good history programs, but they are too big to care particularly about undergrads. Think small liberal arts college or state school, but don't get into debt for it because you won't be able to pay it back in grad school or for a long time after.
2. Get to know your professors as well as possible. Not only will you want letters of recommendation, but they know people in history who can hook you up for grad school, they can also put you in the way of employment while in school.
3. Connected to number 2 is discover what areas you are interested and try to get a good background in them, which means getting to know the profs who teach the subject you are interested in.
4. Take a wide variety of classes, since in grad school you really focus in on one topic you want to gain a good background on things you later will need to know.
5. Learn languages--as many as possible that relate to the area you intend to study, and if possible go visit that location to better learn the language and take classes.
6. Don't take the easy way out, push yourself to get involved, write and research as much as possible.
There is lots more, but this is probably way too long as it is! Good luck, maybe you can tell me where you are thinking of going and what you are interested in? I'd love to help further.
Posts: 234 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right now I'm thinking about going to Florida State University. A while back I asked in a thread if there was any school which is in a higher class for getting my undergrad degree in History and from what I gathered then, there isn't (though if you have an opinion contrary to that I'd love to hear it). I will most likely get a 100% scholarship to FSU, so that's a pretty big plus for it, but my parents have made it clear that they want me to go wherever is best, so if you have any advice there, I'd appreciate it.
My interest is ... well, that's one of my problems. I'm all over the place. I love historical literature, I love the politics and the wars, I love the study of the great individuals in history, and I have, of course, always been interested in the unsolved mysteries of history. I don't have a favorite time period or culture, but rather certain aspects of all time periods and cultures, if that makes any sense. Though if I had to choose a civilization which has interested me the most, Rome would have to have my vote.
Really, I'm quite inexperienced when it comes down to actually learning about history. I've shied away from modern interpretations of history, trying as much as possible to go to the source and forming my own opinions on what happened and why it happened. Perhaps thats a bad habit to have gotten into if I'm going to major in history. I don't know. But when looking at lists of majors, History is the only one that seems of the remotest interest to me. And I'm not particularly worried about the future. Law school has a certain appeal to me, as does being a professor. Or a writer. From what I've heard, for most of my career choices, History is an acceptable major.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, it is good to go to a school where you can get a scholarship, though I noticed that FSU does not actually have a historian of ancient Rome. That is important to note if you are interested in that.
It isn't true that it doesn't matter where you go for history as an undergrad. It is not the only thing, it is a combination of where you go and what you do there. A lot of it is who you know--even the most brilliant work is helped by a reference from a close friend. My current advisor went to school with my former advisor.
Another thing, as a history major one of the most important things you learn is that you need to be aware of how other people interpret the past. Before you attempt to make an argument about a historical series of events, you need to see what scholars have said about the documents you have read. Not so you can blindly accept their take on it, but so that you can understand how views have changed and where yours fits in. You build on previous interpretations.
But by all means, go to FSU and take a whole bunch of different classes, this should help you decide what it is you want to do with yourself. I'd still recommend learning a language, studying abroad, and getting to know professors. Whatever you decide to do with your life, you can find uses for language skills and the recommendations work for any type of career you might enter. Plus studying abroad is cool--and most scholarships can be used to cover the expenses.
Feel free to ask any other questions you may have about being a history major!
Posts: 234 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm starting to wonder about FSU. It is a pretty big school, and yeah, they don't have a phenomenal history program. Also, I'm not brilliant, unfortunately. I'm smart, but I doubt I would stand out overmuch in a class of a couple hundred students or more. Would going to a smaller school which not many people have heard of, but would afford me a better chance to make connections, be a better decision?
The thought occurs to me that I could learn Arabic, which would all but gurantee my employability, but I am unfortunately not interested in Arabic history a great deal. Would it be completely absurd to learn Arabic and study European history?
Edit: Housework calls, but I would like to continue picking your brain at a later time, if at all possible. Is the link in your profile to an email address you check regularly?
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, big schools make it very hard for professors to spend lots of time with students. My own Alma Mater, USU has a fantastic attitude towards undergrads, as they only accept a limited number of grad students so they can spend more time with their undergrads. The opportunities there are phenominal--they had research money for undergraduates to go present at conferences and all kinds of encouragement.
There are lots of schools like that. Which is what I'm getting at, you don't need to go to Harvard or Yale, but a school where the professors are interested in working with undergrads is amazing. It helps if the people there have good reputations in academia, but that is hard to tell until you are there.
If you aren't interested in Arabic history or culture I wouldn't bother learning the language, there are others that are helpful in employment as well. A former room mate of mine is at the NSA learning Farsi or something as part of a program where they train people who have language skills in another more common language in one that they actually need.
Feel free to e-mail me, my profile ought to have a link to e-mail me from. If not my e-mail is sarcare and it is at hotmail dot com.
Posts: 234 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I'm new. I'm a big fan of OSC, I'm glad to be here!
Oops, a bit too late, huh?
Not to interrupt the great derailment y'all have going, but: As a Mormon I wasn't a bit offended by your post about the caffeine, Pelegius, and I was a little befuddled by those who were. Seemed innocent enough to me.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does forum etiquette dictate that i should have said 'hi' and introduce myself before posting? if so, i was unaware and apologize. hi! long time OSC reader and Hatrack visitor, almost first time poster. i'm glad to be here and this forum is guaranteed to get me in trouble at work. also, so i don't seem too acquiescent, all of your opinions are incorrect, and mine should be taken as fact. (in case the irony is lost, i am not being serious)
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It strikes me that we need two things in a peaceful, civilized community: People trying hard not to give offense, and people refusing to take offense, even where offense was intended.
That, in fact, was something I learned in my philosophy of language course from Terry Warner back in 1969 at BYU. Very difficult course - I did NOT have the grounding in philosophy to be ready for it (my training: Will Durant's Story of Philosophy read from cover to cover) - but I learned a lot about the way language works. There is ALWAYS an assumption of the speaker's motive, and an assumption of the hearer's probably response, and one thing you can be certain of, both assumptions will always be, if not flat wrong, then certainly incomplete.
The big problem is the near impossibility of genuine communication between human beings. Everything is an approximation. But I find that unless someone, over a long period of time, makes it clear that he is consistently going to look for the worst possible motive on your part, mostly you should just shrug off misunderstandings, or cheerfully say, "You didn't understand my intention, but that's life, maybe we'll do better in the next conversation."
It's the elaborate attempts to explain why your own motives were pure and everyone else's motives were corrupt that leads to real hostility ...
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So OSC. Your saying the tenets of the philosophy of language are echoed in our religious traditions as well? You mean that its possible that "love thine enemy" and "seventy times seven times" is based in the logical human need of some sort of binding societal principle which overrides our visceral reactions to the world around us and governs our actions? I know your not saying that, specifically, because I am, but its an interesting progression of your thought bubble.
Hmmm. Why do people like Pelegius seem to need to not only take offense where it -may- be given, but also deflect the resentment they feel onto people they don't know, and generate more angst? Do bad feelings pop out of the ether, from no-where? And if they do, and the inertia of every bad-feeling particle is conserved in societal interactions, then maybe we are creating a "black hole" of bad feelings in our society where the bad feelings density has become so great, no-one can escape unoffended.
Edit: Pelegius, why not change your title to "two major problems with the WORLD"
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If your angry at me Pelegius, then I'm sorry for whatever horrible coment I've made to... whoever. And for another thing what are you talking about? The only person I've met that has mistreated me in every topic he's visited is Shawshank. Everybody else is awsome towards newbies.
Or maybe I've missed something....
p.s. Shawshank if your reading this, I haaattee YOU!!!!!!! Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrugs* I think your treatment when you are new depends on how you act. I didn't find the place to be hostile when I was new.
As for the caffeine thing, I think rather than coming out and saying that OSC drank diet coke...and asking if that was against Mormon beliefs, it would have been better to ask about the Mormon take on caffeine.
When dealing with religion, it is generally not a great idea to single out one person and say "I saw/heard of them doing such and such...does that follow with that religion, or are they breaking the rules?"
Religion is always a touchy subject, when you make it more personal that it already is, you are bound to ruffle some feathers. This is particularly true when you are dealing with the internet, since it is a medium that tends to lead to misunderstandings.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
I was trying to humorously (if lamely) react to Pelegius' tone. I know that he, at times, makes an effort to manipulate his audience by using hyperbole and less than tactful phrasing, for example, Pelegius wrote:
quote:Puppy, the title was intentional. I have learnt, as have most others, that titles need to be sensational (for example, a post I wrote entitled "et in arcadia ego" was largely ignored here and completely so elsewhere, but, by means of this title, I have gotten you to post twice already, and thus created a degree of debate that would be absent in a soliloquy.) to get anyone to read the post that follows.
::shrugs:: I was bored with it.
You on the other hand are sensational in the good kind of way and never boring!
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why are people so touchy about their religions, anyway? Touch of insecurity, perchance?
As the Hatracker who is by far the most touchy on the subject of religion, I thought you might tell us Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why are people so touchy about their religions, anyway? Touch of insecurity, perchance?
I think perhaps because religion is often something that makes up a large part of who a person is. When something is very integral to who you are, an attack on it is an attack on you.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why are people so touchy about their religions, anyway? Touch of insecurity, perchance?
I think perhaps because religion is often something that makes up a large part of who a person is. When something is very integral to who you are, an attack on it is an attack on you.
Yeah like in Xenocide when Qui-(insert the right name here because I'm to lazy to go find the book) was told by her father that the gods wern't controling her the congress was, and she totally refused to belive it because it was such a huge part of who she was and she was so afraid to lose that part of herself that she became cold and insensitive to the people she once loved.
Posts: 110 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I was trying to humorously (if lamely) react to Pelegius' tone. I know that he, at times, makes an effort to manipulate his audience by using hyperbole and less than tactful phrasing, for example, Pelegius wrote:
quote:Puppy, the title was intentional. I have learnt, as have most others, that titles need to be sensational (for example, a post I wrote entitled "et in arcadia ego" was largely ignored here and completely so elsewhere, but, by means of this title, I have gotten you to post twice already, and thus created a degree of debate that would be absent in a soliloquy.) to get anyone to read the post that follows.
::shrugs:: I was bored with it.
You on the other hand are sensational in the good kind of way and never boring!
Thanks for the clarification, but mostly for the compliment!
In all honesty, while I know I've run across Pelegius here somewhere, I don't remember his(her?) posting style well enough to react one way or the other because of it. I actually try to not do that, although there are a few who are so outstanding in their styles that it's difficult... Those, I tend to ignore entirely.
But yeah, I can see being bored.
I will also agree that Hatrack, as of late, has been much more hostile than I've ever seen it before, and I could point fingers at who I think is the source of it, but really, I don't see how it would serve a useful purpose. Thing is, it didn't, generally speaking, used to be hostile on a regular basis from what I recall. Sure, there were some who were, but either they left, toned down, or they didn't permeate the whole place. Now? I've been waiting for things to calm down again.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got to a college with a hostile public forum, and none of the fighting there bothers me either. I'm a socially awkward person who enjoys seeing people angry at others, not for the schadenfreude because then I can see what behavior/ideas upset others, so I can learn what people in real life might think about actions without saying. You can objectively watch fights, and see what exactly set people off. Later, you can look at your actual posts and see how incoherant you actually were, or that things didn't come out exactly as you meant it when you typed.
Being rude isn't nice, and you get nice, nasty response back when you are out of line. Duly punished as far as I see. You can either stick by what you typed ("clarify your position") or you can apologize. I don't think people should step around offensiveness when they want to type what they feel in fear of retribution- that's PC at it's real core. Besides, people ignore your rudeness in one topic if you are perfectly polite in another one.
As for name calling, I think it can be a legitimate response- the most pointless of insults are illegal with the G rated forum rule anyway. Troll, is a standard forum insult nowadays anyway.
This is an old forum. Yes the membership is constantly in flux, there are almost 10000 registered members here. We don't want 10000, hi I'm new threads. When I registered, people made a first post in some thread that finally compelled them to talk, and usually the person who replied added a "Welcome to the 'rack" at the bottom to what they would have said anyway. You fit in when you talked a lot that people recognized your name, have replied to your specific post, u dont say stuff like ppl, and generally know who you are.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, personally, am an on and off again poster on the 'rack. I've had my share of "misunderstandings" and simi-hostile threads (though never name calling). And I have gotten upset, and gotten others upset with me. But this is a friendly and good forum, with much love and comradery and to say that there are major problems with it, is just silly. No matter where you go, and what you do, humans will miscommunicate and choose to take offense at something that could have been shrugged off.
It sounds belittling to say it (and that isn't my intention), but...get over it.
No doubt there will be other crossroads we will have to face where feelings are hurt and people go away and stay away angry...get over it. That is life. Choose not to be offended, choose not to give credence to negativity, choose to take things at face value or to simply shrug and move on.
I love you Hatrack...I love you Hatrackers. Keep up the good work!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why are people so touchy about their religions, anyway? Touch of insecurity, perchance?
As the Hatracker who is by far the most touchy on the subject of religion, I thought you might tell us
For somewhat the same reason I am touchy on the subject of fascism. But I was more looking for a perspective from the inside.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I still agree with what Pelegius said in this thread. It is as if the old members are trying desperately to hold on to what they consider "their" turf. Secondly, there is a particular brand of "group think" that is deemed appropriate. Step over mostly unstated lines and you get called names. I haven't seen much difference between older members' and KoM's comments other than his consistancy.
These problems with Hatrack are the reasons I have not and will not participate as a full member. Of course, I know some older members who are glad for that fact.
Since bringing up problems is never good without some solutions, I will propose answers. With the first problem, be more kind and forgiving to new members. If you have nothing other than names to say to them (even if they have the most foolish and rude comments) ignore them. Do not show yourself as equally agressive or rude simply to "teach them a lesson." If you think their behavior and statements go against the Hatrack rules, *ping* an administrative note. If a response must be made to answer a particularly troublesome disagreement with what has been said, do not respond personally to the poster. Respond to the ideas.
This leads to answers to problem number two. This is a lot harder to deal with because the majority of members refuse to see the artificial mindset created over the years. Unwritten rules have been made about acceptable political and religious viewpoints that cannot be crossed without "rude" or "troll" labels. Ironically enough, seniority has allowed those same behaviors a free pass with little comment and sometimes rewards. Regardless of what I think of KoM's relentless (he thinks completely opposite of myself) one -track mind, he does have several points that should be taken seriously. I haven't seem him as a troll so much as a repeating record that has grown tiring. In fact, I only bring him up as an example because most of Hatrack has that same quality. That is why I don't even respond to him or others, unless I want to make a point about something interesting brought up that is more like scratching an itch.
Bottom line: Too much rudeness back at the rude to the point of reacting as if every disagreement was a rudeness. The newer the person and more different the ideas, the ruder the responses.
Next bottom line: The power and influence of the old regime with a communal rigidity and short temper. A definate pack mentality is infused at Hatrack. You could probably list the hiarchy by name (and I am not including OSC or those who are officially designated as responsible).
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
And like JD, didn't understand those who were. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
