1  2  |   Order by index

Jan 15, 2002, 9:08pm

Hey all,

This propensity to ban citizens with whom AW disagrees from these Newsgroups
seems desperate and sad to me. Honestly, much of this discussion feels as
artificial and contrived as any pro wrestling match.

If the AWC-folk have decided that they must gut AW, then they should just go
ahead and do it; nothing any of us can say will stop them anyway. I only
ask that they don't insult our intelligence by trying to make us believe
that most of us are pleased with this development.

jcolbert

..

Jan 15, 2002, 9:52pm

Umm, what are you talking about? More than half the people who post in
these NGs disagree (even vehemently so) with AWC's policies, and yet
they're still here. Just because a few people got banned doesn't mean
that AWC is out to get anyone who utters a discouraging word and stifle
free speech. The people who have been banned were banned for other
reasons (i.e. turning arguments into personal attacks, unnecessary
flaming, etc)

[View Quote] > Hey all,
>
> This propensity to ban citizens with whom AW disagrees from these Newsgroups
> seems desperate and sad to me. Honestly, much of this discussion feels as
> artificial and contrived as any pro wrestling match.
>
> If the AWC-folk have decided that they must gut AW, then they should just go
> ahead and do it; nothing any of us can say will stop them anyway. I only
> ask that they don't insult our intelligence by trying to make us believe
> that most of us are pleased with this development.
>
> jcolbert


--
Goober King
Must be the new guy...
rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu

Jan 15, 2002, 9:58pm

Such as???

[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2002, 5:17am

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00D1_01C19E19.2E3CEBC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

tyrell... what a perfect example you give... of exactly what I =
mentioned earlier. Have you no manners? =20

At least the one you speak of IS well meaning... which is more than I =
can say of you and your post here. =20
[View Quote] The actual facts be damned...=20

Here, try this next time...=20

Pick an issue that has a ring of truth to it (if this were the case =
there'd be very few Citizens left in the NGs as we'v all had shots at AW =
at one time or another...)=20

Pick better your timing to bring the issue to light... (obviously =
you'd never stoop so low as to be just 'fanning the flames' over the =
current Pricing Situation BUT some may not be as gullible as myself...)=20

Pick you'r phrases better (the only thing AW can be accused of is its =
'propensity' to do 'what they think' is required to stay in business... =
(how one feels about the way they'r going about it is a side issue at =
best...) As a 'flame fanner', Citizens bad-mouthing AW hardly creates a =
draft...)=20

If you just have to see your name in a thread, fine... but the =
community already has an issue on it's plate. (whether one agrees with =
the Price Increase or not it is (likely) something everyone is following =
closely...) For me, bad-mouthing AW is a non sequitur... Besides, most =
people over the age of 10 have a good idea what happens if they behave =
inappropriately... To then acted shocked and surprised when 'it' in fact =
happens seems rather silly... This is assuming there's any truth to your =
statement...=20

All those who have been kicked out of the NG because they don't agree =
with the Price Increase 'and are unable to read this' raise their =
hand...=20

PS... a message with 'Pro Wrestling Match' and concern for =
'insult[ing] our intelligence' creates an oxymoron...=20

[View Quote] Hey all,=20
This propensity to ban citizens with whom AW disagrees from these =
Newsgroups=20
seems desperate and sad to me. Honestly, much of this discussion =
feels as=20
artificial and contrived as any pro wrestling match.=20

If the AWC-folk have decided that they must gut AW, then they should =
just go=20
ahead and do it; nothing any of us can say will stop them anyway. I =
only=20
ask that they don't insult our intelligence by trying to make us =
believe=20
that most of us are pleased with this development.=20

jcolbert=20

Jan 16, 2002, 9:58am

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C19E6B.1C536040
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Do you ALWAYS drag ppl over the coals when they speak their minds? Sorry =
we're not as perfect as you hon. This IS an open forum, is it not??? =
Everyone, though repetitive is allowed to comment on whatever they like =
in the newsgroups. How dare you berate or belittle anyone on how they =
percieve things?=20

>(the only thing AW can be accused of is its 'propensity' to do 'what =
they think' is required to stay in business... >(how one feels about =
the way they'r going about it is a side issue at best...) As a 'flame =
fanner', Citizens bad->mouthing AW hardly creates a draft...)

Wrong. We as consumers are allowed to gripe,complain,raise our voices or =
whatever word or phrase you wish to choose. That's the beauty of free =
speech. Those of us who have been loyal AW citizens for a long time take =
all this personally. It hurts to think that we might not ever get the =
chance to chat with some of our online friends again. Not everyone =
enjoys "just chatting" on icq or yahoo chat rooms. Some of us who have =
created works of art in 3D don't have bots to save their builds. Its =
hard emotionally to let all that "go". I'm sure most of us have put our =
hearts and souls into AW. To allow all this to occur, without speaking =
up or showing our ire, is...
inhuman. =20
>:-"<=20
[View Quote] The actual facts be damned...=20

Here, try this next time...=20

Pick an issue that has a ring of truth to it (if this were the case =
there'd be very few Citizens left in the NGs as we'v all had shots at AW =
at one time or another...)=20

Pick better your timing to bring the issue to light... (obviously =
you'd never stoop so low as to be just 'fanning the flames' over the =
current Pricing Situation BUT some may not be as gullible as myself...)=20

Pick you'r phrases better (the only thing AW can be accused of is its =
'propensity' to do 'what they think' is required to stay in business... =
(how one feels about the way they'r going about it is a side issue at =
best...) As a 'flame fanner', Citizens bad-mouthing AW hardly creates a =
draft...)=20

If you just have to see your name in a thread, fine... but the =
community already has an issue on it's plate. (whether one agrees with =
the Price Increase or not it is (likely) something everyone is following =
closely...) For me, bad-mouthing AW is a non sequitur... Besides, most =
people over the age of 10 have a good idea what happens if they behave =
inappropriately... To then acted shocked and surprised when 'it' in fact =
happens seems rather silly... This is assuming there's any truth to your =
statement...=20

All those who have been kicked out of the NG because they don't agree =
with the Price Increase 'and are unable to read this' raise their =
hand...=20

PS... a message with 'Pro Wrestling Match' and concern for =
'insult[ing] our intelligence' creates an oxymoron...=20

[View Quote] Hey all,=20
This propensity to ban citizens with whom AW disagrees from these =
Newsgroups=20
seems desperate and sad to me. Honestly, much of this discussion =
feels as=20
artificial and contrived as any pro wrestling match.=20

If the AWC-folk have decided that they must gut AW, then they should =
just go=20
ahead and do it; nothing any of us can say will stop them anyway. I =
only=20
ask that they don't insult our intelligence by trying to make us =
believe=20
that most of us are pleased with this development.=20

jcolbert=20

Jan 16, 2002, 10:28am

Lioness,, greetings.

The response, as I saw it, was due to the origional post being based
on rumour and probably posted to try and get the sympathy of those who
are annoyed with anything AW does at the moment since there is no
basis in fact, which was what was trying to be said in the response.

As you say the freedom to free speech includes being against the
position as well as for it surely?

Its become a little fashionable in here to react to a post of the
opposite view being taken as from someone who works for AW, or someone
trying to earn brownie points (as if that was needed), or to take
that opposing view as being bad mannered or an attack. Believe me, an
attack would be obvious :)

Its definately popular to assume our own view is the majority view,
when in fact if we start saying things like you all seem to be
against my view, its usually probable that "my" view could be the
minority one however agrieved we personally feel:)

To the best of my knowledge, in 7 years here (when the groups been
open), no-one has EVER been banned from here for being against AW, or
posting about their SEC reports or their policies, or anything that
can be discussed by rational people whatever their view.

People have been banned from the newsgroups (and from AW itself) for
swearing, lying, slander, deliberate incorrect rumour spreading and
attacking other users directly using language composed of primarily
four letter words rather than by rational argument.

Often those attacking people or companies resort to using the very
things they will get banned for, so its common that many will say they
were banned for being against AW, which is not the actual reason they
were banned.

By all means carry on gripeing and complaining, thats your right, as
it is the right of others to disagree with that. And I am sure that
where needed we can all disagree politely without resorting to
attacks.

With regards to your comments about not everyone has bots to copy
their stuff, theres are freeware ones available which for the time
spent in downloading, and a little reading, can do that for you. So
yes everyone does have access to these.

In addition, whoevers hosting the world can run a propdump for you so
that if you do ever come back, it can be reinstated immediately.

As to the primary discussion as to what AW has done or not done,
thats not even part of this thread, so will stay away from using every
possible topic here to drag that back up. After all, some of us went
through all this 6 years ago with exactly the same arguments and
reactions then, so this is old news, even down to the I am gonna take
my toys away and close my world reaction.. been there seen it,
lived through it, maintained a world through it all too and will do
this time as well:)

PS it was a lot worse last time than this time:)

Yours

Moria

[View Quote] >This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C19E6B.1C536040
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>Do you ALWAYS drag ppl over the coals when they speak their minds? Sorry =
>we're not as perfect as you hon. This IS an open forum, is it not??? =
>Everyone, though repetitive is allowed to comment on whatever they like =
>in the newsgroups. How dare you berate or belittle anyone on how they =
>percieve things?=20

Jan 16, 2002, 2:19pm

Hi all (again)

Thank you all for these responses, pro and con.

Moria said:

"People have been banned from the newsgroups (and from AW itself) for
swearing, lying, slander, deliberate incorrect rumour spreading and
attacking other users directly using language composed of primarily
four letter words rather than by rational argument."

My response:

"Lying" and "deliberate incorrect rumor spreading" are exactly the forms of
speech that require protection.

The obvious question here is; "lying" and "deliberate incorrect rumor
spreading" defined by whom? Is there a procedure in place for these banned
posters to appeal these decisions? Are these bans permanent? Is there a list
available with the names of people who have been banned, and why?

I suspect the person who might best reflect my feelings about the recent changes
to AW would be eep, but eep has been banned from these ng's. Why?

Here's a rumor (that I hope won't get me banned): Has AWC management met with
any particular group of citizens to discuss these recent changes?

Respectfully,

jcolbert

Jan 16, 2002, 2:26pm

thanx for providing jcolbert with a perfect example of ppl that get banned
and why... yes, I mean *you*, not Tyrell

KAH

[View Quote] At least the one you speak of IS well meaning... which is more than I can
say of you and your post here.
[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2002, 2:35pm

Hi Jcolbert, greetings. and answers below:)


[View Quote] >
>Hi all (again)
>
>Thank you all for these responses, pro and con.
>
>Moria said:
>
>"People have been banned from the newsgroups (and from AW itself) for
>swearing, lying, slander, deliberate incorrect rumour spreading and
>attacking other users directly using language composed of primarily
>four letter words rather than by rational argument."
>
>My response:
>
>"Lying" and "deliberate incorrect rumor spreading" are exactly the forms of
>speech that require protection.
>
>The obvious question here is; "lying" and "deliberate incorrect rumor
>spreading" defined by whom? Is there a procedure in place for these banned
>posters to appeal these decisions? Are these bans permanent? Is there a list
>available with the names of people who have been banned, and why?

Generally, if someone posts something and it is proven to not be so,
but they keep repeating it ad nauseum, and even going into AW and
saying it time and again and getting ither people to believe it even
when it has been proved, thats good enough:)

Bans are usually for a week the first time, a couple of weeks the
second time, and permanent thereafter :)

>
>I suspect the person who might best reflect my feelings about the recent changes
>to AW would be eep, but eep has been banned from these ng's. Why?

Eep was banned for persistant and repeated attacks on other citizens
using four letter words and bigotry and an inability to act like a
human being. He was finally reported to abuse at activeworlds.com and on
review, having been banned for short periods before, this time it
became permanent.

>Here's a rumor (that I hope won't get me banned): Has AWC management met with
>any particular group of citizens to discuss these recent changes?

Thats not a rumour, thats a question :)

I know of one small group and many individuals, there may be others,
that have sat down and talked calmly and coherently to AW management,
and I myself have spent some time on the phone with them talking:)

Regards

Moria

Jan 16, 2002, 3:42pm

Back again,

jcolbert said:

"Has AWC management met with any particular group of citizens to discuss these recent
changes?"

Moria responded:

"I know of one small group and many individuals, there may be others...."

My response:

What group? If you were a participant in this meeting, would you be kind enough to
share the chatlog with the other members of this list?

Does anyone else here know of other meetings with AWC management to discuss these
changes? If so, please share this information with the rest of us.

Thanks,

jcolbert

Jan 16, 2002, 3:54pm

Greetings:)


>
>My response:
>
>What group? If you were a participant in this meeting, would you be kind enough to
>share the chatlog with the other members of this list?

No for 2 reasons..

1) because it was in a private world as a conversation with private
individuals. A chat log then broadcasts that and invades peoples
privacy.

2) If I did post a chat log, theres enough people here that would say
it was forged if they didnt want to read the answers given.

If you wish to talk to AW about these changes, why not do so, dont
rely on second hand information, get it direct and put your thoughts
to them directly.

There is mail, phone and email, the options are many:)

Only that way will you know whats been said where no-one can deny it
or challenge it :)

Regards

Moria

Jan 16, 2002, 4:23pm

Moria,

I feel sure that all of your posts here have been made in good faith.

jcolbert

Jan 16, 2002, 4:36pm

Back,

Whoops! Sorry!
Sent last msg early.

To continue:

Are you talking about an implied right to privacy? (An informal meeting
of individuals, for instance)

Or were you asked during this meeting to keep this information
confidential?

jcolbert

Jan 16, 2002, 4:45pm

Greetings:)

I was not asked to keep it confidential, and I did not ask permission
to publish it.

Regards

Moria


[View Quote] >
>Back,
>
>Whoops! Sorry!
>Sent last msg early.
>
>To continue:
>
>Are you talking about an implied right to privacy? (An informal meeting
>of individuals, for instance)
>
>Or were you asked during this meeting to keep this information
>confidential?
>
>jcolbert
>
>
>

Jan 16, 2002, 4:58pm

Thank you for this information, Moria,

I guess it's good to know that AWC is, at least, talking to SOMEBODY out
there.

I only wish they'd talk to us...

Until then, it'll be interesting to see what this thread produces.


jcolbert

Jan 16, 2002, 8:25pm

We, as a newsgroup, tried to organize a Citizen's Union to attempt to be
more close with AWC staff in a polite and coherent manner. It was done only
a few months past, not ancient history here. :) It did work, on AWC's part,
to my knowledge, it was our lack of devotion or something that made it
discontinue (second hand information, as far as I know, they're still
alive). You seem to be misplaced when you say AWC the company doesn't listen
and respond to citizens'. Well, if I was an AWC staffer, send me to an
institution before posting in this newsgroup. ;) The reasons are obvious,
I'm sure. But, Flagg, Roland, and almost ALL of the AWC staff are not only
willing to listen, talk, and share their views with us (through other forms
besides this newsgroup, like in AW, or through email), they DO. Some are
even considered close friends, many were AW users before AWC staffers. They
know what we think, they're not stupid logs. Flagg and/or Facter hasn't
banned anyone in this newsgroup for illegitimate reasons, and sure as heck
haven't censored us in any way. Their decisions have been based on OUR
judgements as a newsgroup, not theirs.

I think what you're actually targeting is the two people, Rick and JP, who
are the big cheeses that one rarely sees inside AW, and whose connection
with the AW community is slim to nonexistant. Of course, the knocker is that
they're the ones making huge decisions without our input, but it's part of
business, good or bad.

I hope I'm ranting about the correct topic here. lol.
Nornny

[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2002, 8:30pm

> Bans are usually for a week the first time, a couple of weeks the
> second time, and permanent thereafter :)


That was how it was when I was there, but I wouldnt think its like that now.
I dont know what their policy is now.

F.

Jan 16, 2002, 9:13pm

*grimace*

Sheep. baaa.

SW Chris

[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2002, 9:22pm

To me, it's produced a lot of incoherent babbling about a non-issue.
Jcolbert, as well-meaning as you are, you sure know how to pick em. :)

SW Chris

[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2002, 9:25pm

Tom repeated that same policy when he took over as the newsgroup god. :)

SW Chris

[View Quote]

Jan 17, 2002, 1:17am

I, for one, would like to think that the key people in the decision process
(as you say, Rick and JP) would listen to the people who ARE respected
within the community. There may be several layers of abstraction between the
citizens and the top brass, but there is still a connection and one that, no
doubt is built on mutual respect as in any functional company.

Essentially, I don't think Rick and JP are making blind decisions on this.
Citizens have the ear of people who have the ear of people who have the ear
of ... etc. etc. ... of people who have the ear of Rick and JP.

I'm not for one moment suggesting that you're saying that they ARE making
these decisions without any knowledge of what goes on down here in the
depths of hobbyism and intrigue - just popping in my little joist to prop up
your (welcomingly realistic) comments. :o).

Grims

[View Quote]

Jan 17, 2002, 2:15am

Now that Tom is incharge of who gets the heave ho things are quite a bit
more tidy, or authoritarian depending on your views. But Tom is a good guy
and he only boots people when they truly deserve it.

Jan 17, 2002, 2:55am

[View Quote] >
> To the best of my knowledge, in 7 years here (when the groups been
> open), no-one has EVER been banned from here for being against AW, or
> posting about their SEC reports or their policies, or anything that
> can be discussed by rational people whatever their view.
>




Possibly not banned.

Had someone mentioned SEC reports earlier in this thread? I missed it
I guess. That acronym gets my attention:

I had several SEC related posts deleted a couple years ago. I then
posted them over at Andras's and some folk asked me why not post them in
the AW newsgroups. When I told them what had happened, they were
skeptical so I advised them to try it for themselves. They were able to
reproduce my results.

These newsgroups have gone through 4 phases as I recall. (1) at first
there was no moderation and probably none needed. (2) when AW went
public there was fairly heavy moderation for a while, then (3) the
newsgroups were taken down entirely, and (4) since they have been back
it is as you described.

I have always said that the company has the right to run these
newsgroups any way they want, and we as users really have no rights
(except maybe to get a refund). Free speech is not an issue here.

As someone who wants AW to succeed I have very strong opinions about how
the company should interact with its users. I believe in a fairly low
level of censorship... practically none in fact. A carefull reader can
tell when a newsgroup such as this is being heavily manipulated, so
doing so is counterproductive. I also believe that AW should post
responses to users concerns here. That does not mean respond to every
single message, but when there is substantial user concern about an
issue, this is the best place for the company to go "on the record"
about how they feel.

Failure to respond regularly "on the record" to users concerns simply
gives users the sense that something fishy is going on. Many of the
negative posts here are manifestations of that uneasiness.

Posting here has the advantage over having meetings in AW in that the
post can be carefully considered (run by a lawyer perhaps) whereas
statements made in informal meetings might be imprecise and lead to more
confusion than clarification.

I don't attempt to post SEC URL's here any more, but since you mentioned
it, anyone who is interested in learning about what the company is up
too should take a look. Those reports contain good news and bad news.
They are mandated by law... but as we have seen recently with ENRON,
don't always reflect reality. They are also rather long (150 pages or
so) and hard to find. The law requires them to be based on truth but
they often contain creative language, such that you have to read between
the lines (Not just AW's, but everyone's).

As a wise person stated earlier... there is no substitute for cold hard
facts. (But that doesn't stop some people from trying).


>
> PS it was a lot worse last time than this time:)
>


PPS: Are you referring to when they instituted the original $20
registration? I'm not sure I would agree that that was worse. It
might have SEEMED worse, because many who objected simply refused to pay
the $20 and became tourists. They were still around to protest though,
and could even post in the newsgroups at the time I believe. (That was
soon changed in fact).

This time, a whole class of user has been made to disappear almost
overnight. I'm sure if they had a way to voice their opinions it would
be very loud.

Democracy is not the issue though. The issue is public relations. AW
does it poorly IMNSHO.

Jan 17, 2002, 6:26am

> Now that Tom is incharge of who gets the heave ho things are quite a bit
> more tidy, or authoritarian depending on your views. But Tom is a good
guy
> and he only boots people when they truly deserve it.


Yeah, Toms fukn cool :)

F.

Jan 17, 2002, 6:40am

>
> Essentially, I don't think Rick and JP are making blind decisions on this.

Of course they arnt. If anything, regardless of personal opinion from
others, both men are very intelligent. They are not "Uninformed", they are
not "in the dark" as to the citizens opinions, they know what they are, they
know how upset people are, they know what you think - come on, the guys have
run this company for years now, they're not stupid, in fact, they are quite
damn smart to of gotten such a strangely "un-pidgeonholeable" product to
survive all these years, its quite phenominal.

Do you guys think that they are not involved in the community? You do
realise that in one way or another, they *are* logged into the universe
every day, right (Sorry if I'm giving that away guys! ;) )? Hell, I dont
agree with alot of the decisions they make, n or have I ever, but, in my
time there I came to *respect* the decisions they make, both Rick and JP.

I'll only say it one more time. In regards to newgroup bannings? Its not an
easy thing to do for anyone, but if they did it, they did it for a real
reason, not just on a whim - I know Tom etc well enough to know they they
have *honest* morals in regards to this stuff. In regards to price
increases, and all that stuff? ?I wont say that I agree with it, in fact, I
am quite opposed to such drastic moves - BUT, if they did it for a reason,
they did it for a reason - have a little faith that they actually know more
about AW, than you do.

You guys forget something. There are people, that know more about AW, than
any of you. such people include Roland of course..but it also includes
people like me...bill, tom, stacey..and yes, Rick and JP know more about it
than any of us.

Give it time. Wait and see. You never know, the surprise's that the future
has in waiting may erase your temporary angst - guess you'll all have to try
that thing called "patience" huh ? ;)


Anyways, I'm off to London in a week or three, I wont be posting much in the
next 6 months or so - take care all :)

Facter.

Jan 17, 2002, 6:54am

[View Quote] Hey Facter, touch base, lets get that Beer after all these years:)

Moria

>
>Anyways, I'm off to London in a week or three, I wont be posting much in the
>next 6 months or so - take care all :)
>
>Facter.
>
>

Jan 17, 2002, 12:07pm

"facter" <invurt at hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: 3c468e05$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> In regards to price
> increases, and all that stuff? ?I wont say that I agree with it, in fact, I
> am quite opposed to such drastic moves - BUT, if they did it for a reason,
> they did it for a reason - have a little faith that they actually know more
> about AW, than you do.
>
> Facter.

It is true that I do not know if AW will be more successful after that move, if it will survive, etc., but, mind you, it might seem
a bit selfish but quite a lot of people are actually whining because wether it succeeds or not, they just won't be able to see it
because they can't afford it.

Fox Mc Cloud

Jan 17, 2002, 3:04pm

.... I can't think of anyone who's posting here who won't be coming back
after their cit expires. All they're complaining about is the quote unquote
600 percent price increase, which happens to be about $9.50 a month. Tell
me, which number sounds worse? You hear 600 a lot more than 9.50. :)

Back to my original point.. on renewing at those prices, only a few can't
afford it vs. the implied vast majority who can't. The rest are complaining
because they don't want to pay. They can, but they don't want to. As Moria
said, there is a precedent for this move, and history tends to repeat
itself. :)

SW Chris

[View Quote]

Jan 17, 2002, 5:12pm

I won't be renewing. Of course I COULD pay, if I really had a need for that, but it's not like it's something I need to survive. I'm
a student (studying in a foreign country so I don't have the right to work here, moreover), so I'm watching my expenses. 1.6$ a
month is nothing, 9.50$ is something else.
My parents wouldn't have accepted to pay me that in the first place back then in 1998 anyway.

Of course that all is just me, but I think many students or teens will have to leave (or decide, if you prefer).

Fox Mc Cloud


"sw chris" <chris at skywalkeronline.net> a écrit dans le message news: 3c470439 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> ... I can't think of anyone who's posting here who won't be coming back
> after their cit expires. All they're complaining about is the quote unquote
> 600 percent price increase, which happens to be about $9.50 a month. Tell
> me, which number sounds worse? You hear 600 a lot more than 9.50. :)
>
> Back to my original point.. on renewing at those prices, only a few can't
> afford it vs. the implied vast majority who can't. The rest are complaining
> because they don't want to pay. They can, but they don't want to. As Moria
> said, there is a precedent for this move, and history tends to repeat
> itself. :)
>
> SW Chris

Jan 17, 2002, 5:45pm

Well.... yeah he's ok, but when it comes to slacking off and building and
hanging out with friends while at work he really needs to apply him self
more.


>
> Yeah, Toms fukn cool :)
>
> F.
>
>

1  2  |   Order by index