Jude Rosenstock said:Up until now, I have yet to direct my accusations at anyone in particular and I'm not going to start. I'm not going to get into the value of JAM's posts and I do this out of respect for her since she isn't even involved in this thread. However, I would like to note, at least her threads are properly titled....
Thanks for the respect -- I think.

I do not post -- or maybe I should say -- I have not posted in previous times for the purpose of having my posts evaluated. What's one man's junk may be another man's pleasure.

I am a long-time member of this forum and have witnessed the evolution of what it has become today. I think because of the growth spirt in membership, new members should be accorded a welcoming environment. Maybe they have not searched the forum to read all the Who's the Best threads, et cetera, and as such, they may initiate a thread or post about a topic which has been discussed ad nauseum. Should they be chastized for repetitiveness on topics that maybe veteran members have already read in times gone by? I don't think so.
What is offensive material to some may not be offensive to others. I remember when it deemed to be offensive, the mere mention of Santa Claus on this forum because this fictional character represented a untoward subject matter which was offensive to some readers, but not all readers.
Because the forum has grown, it has experienced what I would term as "growing pains." I think this happens in all newsgroups, discussion forums, and the like. To preclude someone from posting here because their content is not deemed worthy by a minute few seems sad to this reader.
Carry on with the debate. I just wanted to insert my 2 cents worth, which ain't worth much anymore. That was then, and this is now.

JAM