Hi Doug,
I can actually appreciate what you're saying (and decipher it as well, which probably means I've spent way too much time on SI! <gg>).
What I was really trying to diplomatically suggest is that there are a great many other threads for indirect, however insightful, observations. The very nature of this thread has some particular connotations that limit themselves to direct discussion because it really should, quite rightly, become a "dead" thread; a "dead" thread sooner than later. That would mean resolution of all matters at hand. And some of those matters have been resolved, some not quite there.
It's not an entirely comfortable matter for a multiple of other participants, as has been mentioned to me via PM, and for reasons even mentioned publically here. This is not a "standard" thread and I hope you'll be able to accept that and we can converse in other places that we've been able to do so before.
RE: "thread name change" "Best you wake-up and smell the aroma you cooked up just after SI's owners allowed a thread name change,"
Actually, it's not that SI "allowed" it. More so, that was *their* name change. I didn't pick the change. I suggested a couple titles but they were vetoed. Oddly enough I guess I'm sort of an asshole when crossed, so my suggested thread titles didn't pass TOU muster. <gg> They were, nonetheless, pretty darn good titles!
-MrB |
