Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Raedwulf

  1. Perhaps they're bailing because you're being an asshole and they can't see any further point in trying to engage? A Freudian might read something into the fact that you chose the word "clashing" rather than, say, "discussing". No, you're not always like that. But sometimes you damn well have been. So, sometimes, maybe it's you, not them.
  2. I should go look for Patrick Stewart's version...
  3. Apologies are nonsense. You cannot apologise for what someone else did. Especially when the someone else was someone who lived 50, 100, 200 years before you. I'm English, in case it's not obvious. There have been a few calls from UK veterans over the years; the Japanese should apologise for the way they treated our PoWs! Why? They treated our PoWs according to their culture. Surrender was shameful, death was far better. Surrender made you less than human, so they treated PoWs as though they were less than human. It's not the way you think, it's not the way I think... Ultimately the Allies won the war. The Japanese culture that produced that mindset was very thoroughly dismantled. The Japanese now may have trouble dealing with that past. Shit. Wouldn't you? How would you feel having your nose rubbed in what a bunch of c**** your country is, or was? Resentful? Much? But they are not responsible for what happened then. And had I or you, any of you, been born a Japanese male in 1919, make no mistake, I & you, we would have been bayoneting babies, using comfort women, beheading PoWs... We would have been products of the culture we were born into, just as we are now. Lucky us, we have been born into a more enlightened culture (allegedly). We defeated the Japanese, and we destroyed their social order, pretty much completely. They don't bayonet babies, etc, etc any more. Success. Gratitude? Would you be grateful or resentful? And why should the children, the grandchildren, the great-grandchildren, be held responsible for the sins of the fathers? Parochial, by the way, means having a limited or narrow outlook, Cranky. I promise, I will come back to you on this. It's not about the south pacific. Maybe I'm wrong, but so far you give the impression that nothing the US ever did could have been wrong, that the US won WWII, that Europe was utterly wrecked without US assistance... That the world revolves around the US, basically. I'm sure you didn't mean to, but that's the impression that I, at least, am getting!
  4. Rain - that's an interesting link, thank you. Unfortunately, most of what is quoted is rather after the fact. More pertinently, several of the quotes suggest that Japan was, in some way, ready to surrender. On the evidence I've seen, I can't agree that it was. It was in the hands of the militarists & they were not. A "short wave broadcast" as suggested by Hoover, for example, I wish it had been tried; maybe it would have worked. But, in the face of all the available evidence, I'm afraid I don't believe that it would have been anything other than disregarded.
  5. I'd agree. Very parochial & US-centric. If I find time & inclination, I'll do Cranky the courtesy of explaining why I think that in more detail later. However, your post isn't a lot better, Dan. Evidence? None. I've heard this "testing" argument before; I'm fairly sure it cropped up in the ten year old thread too. There's no evidence it's true, or even plausible. It's an argument advanced by the anti-bomb side of the argument because it sounds good & can't be proved or disproved. "Impossible surrender conditions"? What impossible conditions? No conditions were demanded. Japan was the one seeking to impose conditions. The Allied attitude was, quite rightly, "You are beaten, now surrender. No, none of your qualifications on surrender are acceptable. Surrender or face the consequences." Truman made the only reasonable decision he could, I believe; happily, so did Hirohito eventually. Your third para is just... Well, weird. It reads like you haven't read what I've posted. It's not "hundreds of thousands" on each side. It's a choice between hundreds of thousands nuclear, or millions conventionally. It's really a simple choice. How much consideration was given to "Our soldiers" as against "Their civilians"? It was a less-enlightened age that has contributed to our more-enlightened (allegedly) one. It's foolish to try to judge it by our standards. If they were thinking more of "Our's" than "Their's" (which is nothing more than an allegation), I personally find it impossible to blame them for doing so. Truman's choice, and I should think he was aware of it, was between "Millions of ours & millions of theirs, or drop this bomb, the consequences of which are a matter of educated guesswork... Shit, they didn't surrender, OK, drop the other one... Thank christ for that, they've surrendered." An unknown casualty number restricted, roughly, to a single city of a hundred thousand or so, or millions? Defeat is inevitable, yes, but the cost? How many of your own people do you want to be responsible for killing, never mind the enemy? As you say, you're not judging anyone, but the way you put your point doesn't necessarily back that up. And, again, with your last para, evidence, please?
  6. I never said it wasn't possible. However, the cost of winning the war, or rather ending it, given that there was no doubt about the winning, was extortionate, prohibitive. As I have already pointed out! The US High Command had already estimated the likely cost of a conventional victory & they did not like the answers. Would you rather the war had been won conventionally at the cost of 5+ million lives instead of the quarter of a million (approximately & within 4 months of the bombings)? Yes, the bombs had a beneficial effect. Yes, they were woeful actions; they were actions full of woe. But they were not mistakes. They were only rational choices out of a bunch of really shitty ones. As for "war crime", I really don't think you understand what a war crime is. As for "I hate nukes", who here has said they even as much as like them?
  7. OK, now I understand what you're getting at, but I disagree with what you're saying. Mostly because I think you've not entirely understood the scenario that you're using as an argument. Manchuria is an irrelevance to what is happening in Japan. It doesn't matter how up to date the intelligence that the Big Six have on Manchuria, because they don't care what happens to it. The relevant quote from my earlier post is: Essentially, screw Manchuria, screw Maritime Province. The only thing that matters now is making any & every assault so prohibitively costly that the enemy would rather accept our terms than force our surrender. Whatever your view, if you're going to argue that this wasn't the case, then you are, I am sorry, one of those that ten years ago was in cloud cuckoo land. The state of communications is beside the point because what was happening outside of Japan was, by this time, just as much beside the point. And there is another problem with the case you're trying to make. There is a world of difference between internal & external communication. I can't speak authoritatively on the technical or practical capacities of Japanese communications at the point in the war. Again, though, I will point out that the implication in my argument was that external 'internal' communication was delayed, whilst internal communication & communication with the enemy was not. Ergo, there is no reason to suppose that the Big Six were not fully aware of what had happened internally at Hiroshima. Again, I will re-quote my earlier post, The only grey area here is whether or not they knew about the Nagasaki bomb when they were discussing surrender terms. Even asssuming the inconceivable; that all instantaneous communication (i.e. radio or telephonic) between Hiroshima & Tokyo (assuming that that's where the Big Six actually were) had been entirely knocked out; take a look at the geography of Japan. It is stretching belief beyond all reasonable bounds to suggest that the govt had not been fully briefed. They knew about Hiroshima. Still, the best offer that any were willing to make was Condition One, and even that was unacceptable to the Allies. Three days, 30 days; I don't see what difference it makes. The evidence strongly suggests that the second bomb was required. At the risk of being tedious, I'll quote myself again, I've bolded a couple of words. Hirohito had to make an unprecedented intervention simply to offer the unacceptable Condition One surrender. On the 14th August, a full five days after Fat Man, Hirohito made a unilateral decision. A unilateral decision to offer unconditional surrender. Where, Dar, is your evidence that the Japanese might have surrendered after the first bomb, given enough time? It's always going to be arguable because there were only 3 days between the bombs, and no-one can change that. But the evidence I've given above very strongly suggests that both bombs WERE necessary. However little any of us might like it.
  8. Sorry, Dar, not quite sure what you're asking. The Japanese didn't know that Manchuria had been invaded, but they had anticipated that it would be. Therefore they had fortified it. However, at this late stage in the war, they were well aware that there was no hope of holding on to it. More importantly, there was no value in doing so, either. What mattered was defence of Japan. So all the first class units had been brought back to Japan. They didn't know that Manchuria had been invaded, not least because (I imagine) their communications over long distances were probably shot to hell. They were basically confined to Japan, and I'd guess even long range radio communication was jammed. So they didn't know what had happened in Manchuria. If they had known... It would have made no difference to them because they had already, effectively, given it up for lost, and their only interest was the defence of Japan & the maintenance of the Imperial system. I'm sure that they could have communicated with the Americans had they wanted to, however. In fact, implicit in my ten year old argument, is that they had offered conditional surrender, which had been rejected. And after Nagasaki unconditional surrender was offered & accepted. So I don't understand what your question is, given the juxtaposition of the two lines of your post, I'm afraid!
  9. Why you object to the word Community, I presume? Sorry, was the c-word referring to something else?
  10. I just did. Interesting, nicely written, but inaccurate in many respects; written by a journalist, not a historian. Very evocative, but... "Sixty thousand men vaporized in an afternoon is inconceivable"? Never happened. He's confused 60,000 casualties on the first day of the Somme (true) with 60,000 dead (not true), and even that doesn't excuse the use of "vapourised". Interesting, but do read it with a degree of caution!
  11. That wasn't a challenge, Doro. I don't think the forum would survive! And anyway, why would I waste the effort on the likes of you? I'm not that bored. Maybe later... Oh dear. Non-listener. Bye.
  12. Only in your non-native English speaker opinion. Others, some of them native English speakers, disagree that that was what was meant. Opinion! As if I was actually trying to do so!
  13. I could start with "Congratulations! You've missed my point!" That would be overtly sarcastic, and you might feel like responding. So might I, were I on the receiving end. I've written far worse than I've read in this thread, and even posted it. In fact, I've written worse things than Doro has ever posted & posted them. Over the years, though, I've learnt it might be emotionally satisfying, but it's counter-productive. It's like the boy that cried wolf. However important your message is, if no-one listens to it because it's you saying it... I still write walls of flame occasionally, but I almost never post them. I read them & think "Yeah, that's what I'd like to say to you, you...", but I know from bitter experience that there's no point. So I delete it & re-write more calmly having got the angst out of the way. With "serious" posts, it's not unknown for me to write them in WordPad, save them, and re-edit them several times over several days. Even little changes, like "might" instead of "must", makes it sound less like you're metaphorically trying to punch someone in the face, or tell them what they should be doing, and more like you're suggesting something they might like to consider. You'd be astonished how often that results in "I didn't mean it like that" or "I hadn't thought of it like that" or "I see your point", even if a "but" follows. My purpose on forums is, in one sense, two-fold. I've got a sharp wit, sometimes very pointed indeed (especially where Doro is concerned... ), and occasionally I like to be plain silly (I can't do beautiful silly, you see...). So it's nice to make people grin, smile, laugh. Laughter generally makes the world a better place. And I seem to have the knack of making people not take my banter too seriously, so they do tend to laugh, rather than get offended. When I'm being serious, though, I want to get my point across. It matters not a whit to me whether everyone else, or even anyone else, agrees. You can "but" all you like, disagree all you like, doesn't bother me in the least. If I'm entitled to my opinion, so is everyone else. You don't change an opinion by declaring someone to be narrow-minded, bigoted, ignorant, etc, after all. But to get my point across means I need to get you to listen. People in shouting matches aren't listening... Therefore, you've missed my point. Plain & simple & not being sarcastic. What you, Bango, wrote, I scarcely noticed; I was responding to what Vor wrote, not to you. Hence me saying "I'm just making a point". There is a very wise bon mot that says "You are your demonstrated behaviour". In other words, what you think you meant, or how you said it, often isn't nearly so important as what the people you are talking to think you meant or said. The gods only know, I've been bitten in the arse often enough by that! Was it bucko? I've lost track... It's seems to me that you & bucko are reacting to each other without listening ( / reading). "He's patronising me... again!" Other people are joining in; "I can't see what's wrong with what A / B wrote; it's all in what B / A wrote!!" To all intents & purposes, it looks to me like a shouting match - people aren't thinking; about what is being said to them, or about what they are saying; they're just reacting. Neither of you, so far as I've noticed, have made any real effort to understand or conciliate. But my point wasn't about you; it was about what Vor wrote. He said "He wrote this!" & "A native English speaker". Well, no. I disagree that he wrote that. Whether or not you, Bango, are a Keyboard Warrior is beside the point. The KW is an internet personality, and courage or cowardice has nothing to do with their existence or modus operandii. So I feel that Vor is wrong to have declared that that is what & why... And as for the "native English", since he's not... Vor, yer a bleedin' eejit, me ol' mucker!
  14. Raedwulf


    Of course, if you want LoTR-related art, you could do worse than drop into the Bird & Baby. Alas, Nimlith has not visited for several years, but there is some absolutely fabulous stuff in there that she created...
  15. Are you serious? No, he wasn't. He accusing Bango of being a Keyboard Warrior - someone who behaves in a thoroughly aggressive fashion, in a way which it is highly unlikely he would be doing in real life. It's got sod all to do with courage, and everything to do with the fact that the internet is a place that has practically no meaningful sanction whatsoever. Someone can act like a complete cunt (it seems appropriate to use the word at this point, so I'm using it without apology) on the net & what's the worst that can happen to them? They cop a lifetime ban from a forum. Big. Fat. Hairy. Deal. Whereas if someone constantly, even only repeatedly, acts in a ridiculously aggressive fashion (& I'm not suggesting Bango was, I'm merely making a point) in the real world they will wind up either in prison (if they win) or in hospital (if they lose). The internet is a place without restraint or constraint. There are far more Keyboard Warriors than there are real life nutballs, at least in my experience of those I've met in each "world". Finally, are you serious? Since you're not a native English speaker, what business do you have declaring what a native speaker should grasp? Not only am I a native English speaker, I'm a far better speaker (& writer of it) than most of the other native English speakers I've ever come across (and I swear a lot too, rather more than I'd like, because of early working environments, it's something that just comes out in speech; if anybody gives a damn, ask me to express an opinion about fuck & cunt & etc and I will, if I come back & notice!) . I did not read the comment the same way that you & several others have. Do you want to tell me that I "don't grasp"? Hmmmm? You've got an opinion. That's all it is. I've got a different opinion. That's all that is. You, most certainly, do not get to lay down the law about what a native English speaker should "grasp". To me, or to anyone else. And this is only p15 & it's up to p20 already. I don't think I can face any more catching up tonight. Instead, I suggest everyone assume a suitable spiritual position (whatever you consider a spiritual position), breathe in deeply & slowly. Breathe out deeply & slowly and, as you do so, chant not "Ommmmm", but "Baaaaaacoooooooon"! I realise this does nothing at all for The Official Forum Weirdo, but let's face it, at this point in time, I'm just trying to piss him off. Probably too subtly for him to notice, which is why I point this out...
  16. For that to be true, calories would be a meaningful guide to nutrition & it's not. All exercise actually does, in terms of weight los As & ignoring other obvious health benefits, is make you hungry! As Taubes says of the calories in / calories out paradigm, "it is so compelling and so pervasive that it is virtually impossible nowadays not to believe it." Trouble is, when you look at the evidence as he presents it, it's just plain wrong. You're just... strange...
  17. Came to this slightly late, but on the subject of dropping the bomb, or the second one, I had this debate almost exactly 10 years ago (the first thing I'm about to re-post (now that I've got c&p working) was posted on the 8th Aug 2004). I'll apologise in advance for the tone of these pieces - the debate was pretty vigorous & I tended to be more acerbic back then. Please don't take offence; it's a bit strident in places, but that's not directed at anyone here - it'd just be too much trouble to edit it all down! If you're a tl;dr kind of person, because this will be lengthy, in a nutshell, there is no real evidence Japan was willing to surrender after Little Boy. In fact, Suzuki himself, the PM, said they would not have surrendered without the atomic bombs, and surrender was not even discussed until the day Fat Man fell (see below). If you care to know the detail of this position, read on... ====== "Truman repeatedly delayed acceptance of the Japanese government's conditional surrender attempts until after both types of A-bomb had been used" (someone had said in the thread). The significant words in this are "conditional surrender". What I am basing my following points on is a book I have lately been reading called "More What If..." which includes essays on how nearly Truman didn't become President, & what might have happened if The Bomb hadn't been dropped. I can't quote the essayists sources off the top of my head, & I have no idea what his biases might be, but this, in a nutshell, is what the historian who speculated on The Bomb scenario had to say. Fact: Japan was ruled by a small military clique. I forget the exact number, but it's something like 6 or 7 people deciding the fate of the entire nation, with unquestioning obedience at their beck & call from the population at large. Fact: Conditional surrender, which is all that was on offer from the Japanese, meant a surrender in which all the existing power structures remained in place. Does anyone think this was an acceptable proposition? Fact: The ruling clique was perfectly prepared to spend thousands & millions of Japanese lives (never mind Allied casualties) in an effort to force the Allies to accept a conditional surrender on the above terms. They knew they were beaten, but they (very humanly, if very inhumanely) sought surrender on the most advantageous terms. I ask again, does anyone think this was an acceptable proposition? Fact: With the exception of Douglas MacArthur (who was rather Patton-esque in many respects, especially as regards his estimation of his own abilities - sorry, that's somewhat my opinion, rather than quoted fact!), the majority of the the senior US commanders, particularly Navy bods, were unenthusiastic (to say the least) about the prospects of invading Japan. Fact: Geographical limitations determined & limited the possible beach-heads for any American invasion of Japan. Hindsight has established that the Japanese high command (limited in certain respects, but not stupid) had correctly identified every single possibility & defended appropriately. Any invasion would have resulted in absolute carnage. Okinawa would have been a picnic by comparison & the American command knew it. Conservative casualty estimates run way beyond the million mark (try 2-3 million for size), making Hiroshima & Nagasaki small beer by comparison. Probability: It is likely that Hirohito had far more power, authority & knowledge than the Allies quite deliberately let everyone believe. There are strong indications that quite late in 1945, Hirohito was still in favour of continuing the war. Truman's decision was never going to be a good one to have to make. It was a choice between diabolical & far worse. Anonymous guests can bleat all they want about "dogma" & "war criminals". Given the choice he had to make, Truman would have had to have been mad or stupid to have done otherwise. It was a horrible choice, even if he knew (which I doubt he did or could have) the full consequences. Nevertheless, I believe he not only saved thousands of American lives, by condemning H & N, I believe he also saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese (& maybe Russian too) lives. Plus, on the whole, he ultimately created a better society for all of those survivors. ====== (Posted a few days later) Those of you wishing to believe that the Japanese might have surrendered in any other circumstances than post-The Bomb(s) are living in cloud cuckoo land. Prime Minister Suzuki stated that, without the atomic bombs, Japan would not have surrendered (& he ought to know). Russian invasion made no bloody difference. The Japanese didn't know what had happened in Manchuria for several days, & didn't care anyway. They'd already stripped all the first class units out of those armies for home defence. As to the suggestion that Russian intervention was a complete & unpleasant surprise... The Japs made a remarkably good job of fortifying Maritime Province (Far East - Vladivostock way) in anticipation of such an event. Such that the projected 9th August invasion of Hokkaido would have been at least a fortnight behind schedule, due to the tenacious resistance of Japanese forces, especially on Sakhalin (an important staging post for the Soviets). Economic collapse meant nothing, & blockade would not have affected the "Big Six" that ruled Japan. Millions would have died from starvation in Japan (including all Allied POW's & internees), which would not have affected Japanese determination in the least. They were dying for their God. The entire Japanese strategy was to win the "decisive battle". Not "decisive" in any military sense, but to make the cost of any Allied victory so high as to make negotation (acceptance of Japanese terms, in other words) preferable. This had been High Command strategy for many months. The advent of nuclear war, as Suzuki admitted, made an invasion of Japan redundant. At that point, given that they didn't (& couldn't possibly) know that there were only two bombs, the only strategy remaining was national suicide. Even then, it took unprecedented intervention from the Emperor to initiate surrender. God knows what would have happened if Japan had bluffed for a week or two. The longer it went without the USA obliging with a third bomb... Fact: there is no pre-Hiroshima document from Japan that suggests that any terms that Japan might have considered were at all acceptable to the Allies. Fact: no Japanese government had surrendered in over 2,000 years. Fact: no Japanese unit surrendered before 15/8/45. Even after that date, many units refused to believe in the Emperor's surrender, & many (particularly officers) committed suicide rather than shame themselves. Fact: the first time the Japanese government seriously discussed surrender is the day Fatman fell (I do not know whether this discussion took place before, after, or with knowledge of, the Nagasaki bomb). Even then, the Big Six were split 50-50 as to surrender terms. History Lesson: The Political Reality of Japan Japan was ruled by an Imperial Council, colloquially known as the Big Six. In the twenty-odd years preceding 1945 there are no less than 64 assorted purges, including 2 prime ministerial assassinations. No-one is going to say "Boo" to the Big Six in 1945, gentlemen. Not no way, not no how. The only attempt at a coup in war years is post-surrender & an attempt to continue the war!!! As, I think, has already been pointed out. For the 'Six' to function, they must be unanimous (it is, if you will, a variation on the Shogun governments that plagued a slightly earlier Japan). Of the 6 members, only one (the Foreign Minister) is a civilian. Of the remaining 5, one is a retired Admiral (I think this is Suzuki, the PM, retired 1937), the rest are serving Flag Officers. Japan is firmly in the hand of militarists. Even on the day of Fatman, the discussion is split equally between two camps. Both are conditional surrenders. Condition one (common to both) is that the Imperial system must continue. Conditions two through four are: Repatriation of all Japanese combatants; all "so-called war crimes trials" (Japanese wording!) to be conducted under Japanese supervision; no Allied occupation of Japan. Because of the split, the official position will be that of the "all four conditions" party. Hirohito made an unprecedented intervention at this point. The surrender was offered with only condition one as a rider. The US Sec. of State responded swiftly - only unconditional surrender was acceptable & the Emperor was to be subject to the Supreme Allied Commander. More heated discussion ensued in the Japanese cabinet, but on 14/8/45 the Emperor made a unilateral decision. Radio messages were sent to all Japanese armies, & at noon 15/8/45 many Japanese heard the voice of their god for the very first time as he declared the surrender... Now don't drop The Bomb... The Imperial High Command are already seriously considering declaring martial law. Invasion by any of the Allies will certainly trigger this. At this point, Hirohito no longer has an mechanism by which he can intervene. His power is entirely based on the willingness of the government & military to obey him. Take away the Big Six, & there is zero chance that any such opportunity will occur. Moreover, the infrastructure to communicate a surrender would have disintegrated before Hirohito had a chance to announce it. Fact: Before Fat Boy, the US General in charge of bombing operations over Japan had already decided to change focus. In light of the German/European experience, he had given orders to target communications & infrastructure, instead of cities. Japanese infrastructure is incredibly vulnerable. Keeping the rail network cut in just half-a-dozen or so places (given that their maritime transport network is, in the current circumstances, at a complete standstill) will result in the the civilian (not military - betcha they'll get fed?) starvation of the south. Fact: In post-war Japan, even with the nuclear-induced victory of the Allies, the ration was cut as low as 1,040 calories/day. Imagine what Japan would have been in the wake of a protacted conventional campaign... Congratulations to the morally upright amongst you who would not have dropped The Bomb. Conservative estimates suggest you will kill around 5 million Japanese through military intervention & starvation, & 5-10 million others before the war ends. The war will last another 2-5 years. Japan (without substantial economic help) will remain an agricutural backwater. Of course, the Marshall Plan for Western Europe probably won't happen because resources will be lacking, & so on & so forth... You've just made the world a better place, haven't you... (I'm glad you think Truman was a cold-hearted, gullible, evil, whatever-adjective-you-like bastard - Me? I prefer to think of him as a pragmatist. He didn't choose a good choice, cos there weren't any. He chose the best one he could find, & I reckon history won't judge him too badly whatever the nay-sayers may claim). There is nothing to suggest that anything other than the atomic bomb persuaded Japan to surrender. The alternatives presented are not substantiated by any historical example or precedent whatsover.
  18. Actually, it's not high fat foods that are the problem, which is one reason why calorie counting is complete bollocks. It's high-carb diets that are the problem (and they, typically, are eaten by the poorer sections of any society because they're cheap, which is why there are many poor fat, yet malnourished people around). Try getting your hands on Why We Get Fat by Gary Taubes. You may not agree with everything in it, you may not change your diet as a result, but he has some very compelling arguments to make.
  19. Ooo! Is there a fight, Bas? Who do you reckon Vor is fighting? Which side do you reckon we should pick o.... Sorry? Vor thinks we're fighting each other?! Oh dear. {sniggers nastily} Is he ever in for a nasty surprise. Will you tell him or shall I... {evil grin} True, Spidey, but on Anet's forums, it must be borne in mind that kitten is an expletive. Only a Yank could do that to such a sweet and innocent... {ducks & runs}
  20. I've read Dreadnought more than once; it's one of the best written & well researched histories I've ever read. However... alongside Bel's "Germany's leadership were convinced that time was running out" (dammit, why does neither quote nor cut & paste work for me now? Gah!), you have to lay the fact that they panicked when they realised that war was unavoidable. There is an argument that The Great War was inevitable; that, I think, is wrong. There is another argument that A Great War was inevitable; a case can be made for that, although it will never be more certain than an intellectual exercise. But The Great War as it happened was, I think, a war of ommission, rather than commission. No-one (not even Hotzendorf) set out to start it. It was just far too late when those who might have withdrawn realised they couldn't...
  21. Wow! Doro finally got banned (albeit, only briefly)? That made my day! As to the rest of it, I don't hang around here much these days, so I don't know what Dar's moderation has been like (no, Dar wasn't the trigger for me mostly departing), but I do know that this, as it has always been, is MueR's forum. Now, mostly I trust MueR to be a miserable old git (despite him being rather younger than me), but I also trust him to run a forum. So I would suggest that the best course is to let him sort things out quietly & privately. Yelling in public rarely does any good. Especially on the internet, where you will never even metaphorically carry your teeth home in a paper bag, as you might well deserve!
  22. Incalcuably so! For better or worse? There's an unanswerable value judgement...
  23. Raedwulf


    We're supposed to tell how, exactly? Argh. Shit. Happily, do no more than 2 days a week in the office, and they're allegedly making me redundant... sometime... (been extending me since Feb!).
  • Create New...