ForumGarden

Bruv;1316119 wrote: But putting my six pennorth in, one of the things that winds me up about FG......is threads like this one.


We're trying to mend something that's broken. Our hearts are pure and our motives unexceptionable.

spot;1316123 wrote: I expect after achieving the unique record of being ejected as a ForumGarden mod twice, with administrator bans both times, there must be some underlying flaws in her social skills. I can think of five offhand, but the thread's very carefully avoiding Compost and I'm certainly not going to weight it in that direction.


Underlying flaws in social skills?

Look who youre talking to.

theia;1316115 wrote: I haven't really noticed much difference in the moderating system, and now I'm wondering, "Why havent I?" or "What have I missed?" Or is it that it just hasn't affected me?


Good lord... someone give theia an infraction for obtuseness, then she might get the point.

spot;1316129 wrote: Good lord... someone give theia an infraction for obtuseness, then she might get the point.


That would mean nothing, spot, I've got a degree in that.

Kathy Ellen;1316124 wrote: This is not clearly written Spot or am I wrong?:wah:


I do hope you're wrong. The bit about "FG could replace the current moderators with a set" listed The Dirty Dozen as obvious candidates. The other four fell foul of my proposed exclusion of ex-moderators.

spot;1316123 wrote: I expect after achieving the unique record of being ejected as a ForumGarden mod twice, with administrator bans both times, there must be some underlying flaws in her social skills. I can think of five offhand, but the thread's very carefully avoiding Compost and I'm certainly not going to weight it in that direction.


I really hope that this thread continues on....I honestly do:p It's a well-deserved time for our membership to discuss our issues about FG and very, very long overdue.



Everyone is behaving and not arguing. This thread will survive if we keep it civil.





I hope that we can eventually bring home lots of former members, banned or not, who really want to return.



I'd be lost without FG and all my friends here:-1. I don't want to lose the little that we have here, do you?

spot;1316135 wrote: I do hope you're wrong. The bit about "FG could replace the current moderators with a set" listed The Dirty Dozen as obvious candidates. The other four fell foul of my proposed exclusion of ex-moderators.


Sorry Spot...Some of your thoughts were confusing there:wah:

So do I have it correctly here - you want to get rid of little ol' me ? :-1

and all the other present moderators ?

G#Gill;1316145 wrote: So do I have it correctly here - you want to get rid of little ol' me ? :-1

and all the other present moderators ?


I rather doubt tombstone would allow that.

G#Gill;1316145 wrote: So do I have it correctly here - you want to get rid of little ol' me ? :-1

and all the other present moderators ?


I haven't criticized any of the current moderation team, I've criticized the current heavy moderation policy which isn't decided by the moderators at all. We're in danger here of forgetting the essential problem which is that the last eight monthly post count totals have all been lower than any month the site has seen since 2004 - the year ForumGarden started - and the last two months have each totalled around 6,000. That's less than a quarter of where we were for most of the site's existence. For three years after the original "spam patrol" started in January 2006 the average monthly post count was around 25,000. These are real numbers and they suggest to me that something needs to be done at a structural level.

To bring back ex-members the moderator pool would have to be completely refreshed but that's a secondary issue. I want moderator activity to revert to culling spam and moving contentious threads into Compost rather than using the delete facilities. I want the Infraction system used solely to handle spam and proxy abuse rather than to restrict the way members discuss matters. I want those things because I think they'd put ForumGarden's post volume back up to a level where the site once again sparkles. The reversion would be easier to achieve if the current moderator group who have been implementing the heavy moderation policy relinquish their role.

When the moderator group was initially set up I argued in public that moderator terms be restricted to a year. That, in hindsight, was not a bad suggestion. When it was initially set up it was with explicitly light moderation rules of the sort I'm describing. The moderation rules changed and the consequence is, I suggest, the current low posting volume.

spot;1316188 wrote: I haven't criticized any of the current moderation team, I've criticized the current heavy moderation policy which isn't decided by the moderators at all. We're in danger here of forgetting the essential problem which is that the last eight monthly post count totals have all been lower than any month the site has seen since 2004 - the year ForumGarden started - and the last two months have each totalled around 6,000. That's less than a quarter of where we were for most of the site's existence. For three years after the original "spam patrol" started in January 2006 the average monthly post count was around 25,000. These are real numbers and they suggest to me that something needs to be done at a structural level.

To bring back ex-members the moderator pool would have to be completely refreshed but that's a secondary issue. I want moderator activity to revert to culling spam and moving contentious threads into Compost rather than using the delete facilities. I want the Infraction system used solely to handle spam and proxy abuse rather than to restrict the way members discuss matters. I want those things because I think they'd put ForumGarden's post volume back up to a level where the site once again sparkles. The reversion would be easier to achieve if the current moderator group who have been implementing the heavy moderation policy relinquish their role.

When the moderator group was initially set up I argued in public that moderator terms be restricted to a year. That, in hindsight, was not a bad suggestion. When it was initially set up it was with explicitly light moderation rules of the sort I'm describing. The moderation rules changed and the consequence is, I suggest, the current low posting volume.


I'll throw a spanner in, the moderation changed because the membership changed. Moderators were expected to take sides in peoples arguments and ban the baddies. Trouble is so many of the battles have gone on so long no one knows who started what, where and why. And to be honest I really don't care, people really do need to use the ignore feature or just stay away from people they dislike and stop expecting us to sort out their arguments.

I vote for the return to light moderation and more membership tolerance. I'm happy for the membership to have an area where they can indeed battle things out but without the expectation that mods will step in and slap one or other on the wrist.

Betty Boop;1316189 wrote: I'll throw a spanner in, the moderation changed because the membership changed. Moderators were expected to take sides in peoples arguments and ban the baddies. Trouble is so many of the battles have gone on so long no one knows who started what, where and why. And to be honest I really don't care, people really do need to use the ignore feature or just stay away from people they dislike and stop expecting us to sort out their arguments.

I vote for the return to light moderation and more membership tolerance. I'm happy for the membership to have an area where they can indeed battle things out but without the expectation that mods will step in and slap one or other on the wrist.


Could you PLEASE ask spock to stop harrassing me !!! God !

Betty Boop;1316189 wrote: I'll throw a spanner in, the moderation changed because the membership changed. Moderators were expected to take sides in peoples arguments and ban the baddies. Trouble is so many of the battles have gone on so long no one knows who started what, where and why. And to be honest I really don't care, people really do need to use the ignore feature or just stay away from people they dislike and stop expecting us to sort out their arguments.

I vote for the return to light moderation and more membership tolerance. I'm happy for the membership to have an area where they can indeed battle things out but without the expectation that mods will step in and slap one or other on the wrist.


I agree

I too vote for light moderation and more membership tolerance. It has to be expected, that amongst so many members and so many contentious issued discussed, a level of arguement will take place but as adults we should deal with this repectively. This isnt a teenage chat room. The average age must be around the 40 to 50 and our behaviour must reflect that. The ignore function works perfectly well for me, although I dont physically activate the "ignore feature".

If this is to work as a new system, former members should be invited to rejoin, having been victims of the heavy moderation and those members who have not been banned but havent returned should be encouraged to, with the promise of a new regime. I have to add that the Administrator has a duty to ensure this place is run properly and as such needs to participate as much as he can and not leave the place to run on tickover

A fresh start maybe the only way to kick start this back place into life. Something is missing and it needs putting back

Snowfire;1316195 wrote: former members should be invited to rejoinWho have I left off my list, out of interest? It can't be anywhere near complete. There's Lulu, for example, if she's still around.

spot;1316196 wrote: Who have I left off my list, out of interest? It can't be anywhere near complete. There's Lulu, for example, if she's still around.


I'm sure there are many. We should invite present members to suggest

Unkle Kram is one off the top off my head

I've just registered at cya as a possible way to discuss matters, we'll see how that goes.

Betty Boop;1316189 wrote:

I vote for the return to light moderation and more membership tolerance. I'm happy for the membership to have an area where they can indeed battle things out but without the expectation that mods will step in and slap one or other on the wrist.


Nice one Boopie! I agree, especially with the idea of an area less restrictive. However, ne'r the twain should meet.

Betty Boop;1316189 wrote: I'll throw a spanner in, the moderation changed because the membership changed. Moderators were expected to take sides in peoples arguments and ban the baddies. Trouble is so many of the battles have gone on so long no one knows who started what, where and why. And to be honest I really don't care, people really do need to use the ignore feature or just stay away from people they dislike and stop expecting us to sort out their arguments.

I vote for the return to light moderation and more membership tolerance. I'm happy for the membership to have an area where they can indeed battle things out but without the expectation that mods will step in and slap one or other on the wrist.


I agree this is the sensible option in most cases. Betty i did do this with a member i couldn't get on with. I put them on ignore and avoided them. They however insisted on following me around just posting straight after me and generally irritating the life out of me until i ended up with an infraction. I thought the infraction i got for the post i did quite harsh honestly compared to other posts i have seen, but hey ho, if it was reported it has to be dealt with. The point i am making is, i was feeling harassed and irritated but the member wasn't doing anything to actually break the rules, so therefore there was nothing the mod team could actually do about it, not that i ever asked. I could have pleaded my case and asked for some understanding when i got the infraction but its only an infraction so i just accepted it. The mods have a job to do and it had to apply to me the same as anyone.

Therefore, sometimes people have to realise that even though you are being given a hard time, or having problems the mods cant always help you and shouldn't be expected to.

An area to battle things out could have been a place i may have felt safe enough to say to that person ,, look we don't get on lets just agree to leave each other alone as much as possible. Then it may not have escalated

spot;1316201 wrote: I've just registered at cya as a possible way to discuss matters, we'll see how that goes.


There hasnt been any activity there for getting on for two years

I agree with you Kaz. I have been asking about a forum for this and to include other things as well, but so far nothing has been settled. I did approach TS about this some months ago, and he said he thought it was a good idea. However, so far, nothing has been forthcoming about it from admin. The idea was to have the forum viewable by members only, and also not viewable on the 'home' page. So that it would exclude 'guests' reading that particular forum.

What is CYA please ?

G#Gill;1316210 wrote: I agree with you Kaz. I have been asking about a forum for this and to include other things as well, but so far nothing has been settled. I did approach TS about this some months ago, and he said he thought it was a good idea. However, so far, nothing has been forthcoming about it from admin. The idea was to have the forum viewable by members only, and also not viewable on the 'home' page. So that it would exclude 'guests' reading that particular forum.


I'm not sure how many times I've said this...

WE DO ALREADY have an area that is only visible to members, it's the COMPOST PILE. All it needs is an announcement out back that if there is a discussion going on and the 'composted thread' keeps popping up then moderators ignore that fact and don't carry out the threat of infraction if members keep posting. It's actually a ready made area that would be a good testing point to see if it would work.

Betty Boop;1316189 wrote: I'll throw a spanner in, the moderation changed because the membership changed. Moderators were expected to take sides in peoples arguments and ban the baddies. Trouble is so many of the battles have gone on so long no one knows who started what, where and why. And to be honest I really don't care, people really do need to use the ignore feature or just stay away from people they dislike and stop expecting us to sort out their arguments.

I vote for the return to light moderation and more membership tolerance. I'm happy for the membership to have an area where they can indeed battle things out but without the expectation that mods will step in and slap one or other on the wrist.


The ignore button can only go on so long, if someone is personally attacking you, provoking, bullying, etc, there is nothing that can be done, as mods have said before, it is only that person that is allowed to report. Otherwise that person can keep on attacking or provoking and the member who has them on ignore just has to put up with it.

When you have a member on ignore, you do 'view their post', its just normal, as you know they have said something again about you and nothing was ever done about it, until that member gets so fed up, they lash out, which is completely normal as you would to, then that member gets an infraction.



As you said, you don't care , but its not mods that are bullied, provoked or personally attacked on an open forum.

no one should be bullied, attacked, or degraded by another member in the first place.

Snowfire;1316208 wrote: There hasnt been any activity there for getting on for two years


That's true, but on the other hand I don't think I'd get much of a welcome on 24. Besides, I don't think snooze is a member there to talk to but I bet she's got my cya application.

Odie;1316213 wrote: The ignore button can only go on so long, if someone is personally attacking you, provoking, bullying, etc, there is nothing that can be done, as mods have said before, it is only that person that is allowed to report. Otherwise that person can keep on attacking or provoking and the member who has them on ignore just has to put up with it.

When you have a member on ignore, you do 'view their post', its just normal, as you know they have said something again about you and nothing was ever done about it, until that member gets so fed up, they lash out, which is completely normal as you would to, then that member gets an infraction.



As you said, you don't care , but its not mods that are bullied, provoked or personally attacked on an open forum.

no one should be bullying, attacking, or degrading another member in the first place.


Sorry, but I have to disagree with you there, of course mods do get bullied, constantly by people accusing us of all sorts :wah:

As a member you have to ignore such people, why play into their drama, it's pointless.

EVERYONE here is guilty of going after someone to annoy, even you and I Odie.

Betty Boop;1316212 wrote: I'm not sure how many times I've said this...

WE DO ALREADY have an area that is only visible to members, it's the COMPOST PILE. All it needs is an announcement out back that if there is a discussion going on and the 'composted thread' keeps popping up then moderators ignore that fact and don't carry out the threat of infraction if members keep posting. It's actually a ready made area that would be a good testing point to see if it would work.


I think you are referring to Problems, Solutions & Feedback and it qualifies it's remit as :- For technical issues relating to Forum Garden and its associated pages.

So members reading that will assume that it is for technical problems on FG only, not for any 'domestic' FG hassles, arguments, discussions etc. Don't you think ?

Betty Boop;1316212 wrote:

WE DO ALREADY have an area that is only visible to members, it's the COMPOST PILE.


Hm. I've been posting for quite a while[1], and I've never seen it!



[1]I looked it up! 08-20-2004 (20th. August 2004). Tempus fugit.

Betty Boop;1316215 wrote: Sorry, but I have to disagree with you there, of course mods do get bullied, constantly by people accusing us of all sorts :wah:

As a member you have to ignore such people, why play into their drama, it's pointless.

EVERYONE here is guilty of going after someone to annoy, even you and I Odie.


mods don't get attacked, bullied or 'personally attacked' on an open forum

and if they do? They are allowed to say what they want, members are not.

one can only ignore for so long when nothing is being done.

any member who provokes in turn, will lash out, its just normal.

G#Gill;1316211 wrote: What is CYA please ?


Cover Your Ass ? :wah:

Odie;1316213 wrote: As you said, you don't care , but its not mods that are bullied, provoked or personally attacked on an open forum.Odie, there are times when I wonder whether you're winding people up instead of just completely blind to what happens. I don't think it for long but it occasionally flits across my mind.

G#Gill;1316217 wrote: I think you are referring to Problems, Solutions & Feedback and it qualifies it's remit as :- For technical issues relating to Forum Garden and its associated pages.

So members reading that will assume that it is for technical problems on FG only, not for any 'domestic' FG hassles, arguments, discussions etc. Don't you think ?


http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/compost-pile/ Gill. Not Problems, Solutions & Feedback. Compost.

Odie;1316220 wrote: mods don't get attacked, bullied or 'personally attacked' on an open forum

and if they do? They are allowed to say what they want, members are not.

one can only ignore for so long when nothing is being done.

any member who provokes in turn, will lash out, its just normal.


Your post just proves to me that you expect the moderators to decide who is a baddy and get rid of them. We're unpaid babysitters, you want us to punish members and make it obvious what punishment has taken place so that member can be humiliated and you can gloat. That's why we have a slow moving place here right now, because members can't ignore others or leave them alone, moderators have been forced to take action and make decisions on things they don't even want to be involved in in the first place.

spot;1316224 wrote: http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/compost-pile/


Ah. Now I see. "Supporting members only". So, they can legitimately have a "ding-dong" but not the general public?

Betty Boop;1316225 wrote: Your post just proves to me that you expect the moderators to decide who is a baddy and get rid of them. We're unpaid babysitters, you want us to punish members and make it obvious what punishment has taken place so that member can be humiliated and you can gloat. That's why we have a slow moving place here right now, because members can't ignore others or leave them alone, moderators have been forced to take action and make decisions on things they don't even want to be involved in in the first place.


you punish me, don't you?

I've been humiliated before for everyone to see haven't I?

never mind, this wasn't to be another rip into Odie.

enough said.

G#Gill;1316210 wrote: I agree with you Kaz. I have been asking about a forum for this and to include other things as well, but so far nothing has been settled. I did approach TS about this some months ago, and he said he thought it was a good idea. However, so far, nothing has been forthcoming about it from admin. The idea was to have the forum viewable by members only, and also not viewable on the 'home' page. So that it would exclude 'guests' reading that particular forum.
TBH i dont know wether i totally agree with an area like that, but i didnt feel i could speak openly to that person on a thread and say look lets just ignore each other as much as possible eh?.. maybe an area such as that could be tested for say 6 months or so?

Betty Boop;1316212 wrote: I'm not sure how many times I've said this...

WE DO ALREADY have an area that is only visible to members, it's the COMPOST PILE. All it needs is an announcement out back that if there is a discussion going on and the 'composted thread' keeps popping up then moderators ignore that fact and don't carry out the threat of infraction if members keep posting. It's actually a ready made area that would be a good testing point to see if it would work.
i didnt realise you could acually start a thread there:wah: of course i cant now as im not a paying member

Betty Boop;1316225 wrote: Your post just proves to me that you expect the moderators to decide who is a baddy and get rid of them. We're unpaid babysitters, you want us to punish members and make it obvious what punishment has taken place so that member can be humiliated and you can gloat. That's why we have a slow moving place here right now, because members can't ignore others or leave them alone, moderators have been forced to take action and make decisions on things they don't even want to be involved in in the first place.


so true! not even personally, but i have seen it where members fall out and then just proceed to follow each other around goading and disagreeing just for the sake of getting on the other ones nerves

Bill Sikes;1316232 wrote: Ah. Now I see. "Supporting members only". So, they can legitimately have a "ding-dong" but not the general public?


I don't think it's Supporting members only, I think it's everyone with an account but it does need that password entering. The lock's there to stop material ending up on search engines and to allow members to keep those threads off Today's Posts if they prefer not to see them. If you can't actually get in by using the password then I'm wrong, and we ought to get it changed, but I might be right.

Odie;1316236 wrote: you punish me, don't you?

I've been humiliated before for everyone to see haven't I?

never mind, this wasn't to be another rip into Odie.

enough said.


That reminds me, I forgot to add Milly to the ex-members list we could do with getting back here.

spot;1316242 wrote: I don't think it's Supporting members only


"Forumgarden Message

Hello Bill Sikes. It looks like you do not have the necessary account permissions to access this area of ForumGarden.

You are trying to access an area or feature that is reserved for ForumGarden Supporting Members."

Bugger.

I apologize. I've no way of testing since I've only the one account.

That would need changing if it were to be a place to relieve tensions. If the site's going back to light moderation, though, people will have to stop relying on moderator interference in all parts of the board, not just in that one area. Pushing disagreements out of sight into the Compost was a way of keeping the advertising areas of the site free from contamination and it would still be needed, but it would obviously have to be for all members.

Odie;1316236 wrote: you punish me, don't you?

I've been humiliated before for everyone to see haven't I?

never mind, this wasn't to be another rip into Odie.

enough said.


My response was not to humiliate as you claim, read what you said Odie! You want the moderators to be dishing out punishment and when you see nothing is being done you feel entitled to lash out!

Odie;1316220 wrote: mods don't get attacked, bullied or 'personally attacked' on an open forum

and if they do? They are allowed to say what they want, members are not.

one can only ignore for so long when nothing is being done.



any member who provokes in turn, will lash out, its just normal.

spot;1315504 wrote:

The tension between moderator policy and my own attempts, as a moderator, to mitigate its effect was the reason I left the moderator group. One consequence of applying the moderator rules was that people were being censored and banned. When my argument that a current crop of proposed bans should be held off was interpreted as personal bias I felt unable to defend my position and so I stood down. Having signed on to a process of light moderation and subsequently been instructed by the administrator to impose heavy moderation, and finding the administrator unwilling to change his stance, I had little choice.


Spot, it sounds to me like you have already had a lengthy discussion with TS regarding the way he chooses to manage his forum. You stepped down, on your own accord, because you didn't like his final decision. Is that correct?

spot;1316126 wrote: We're trying to mend something that's broken. Our hearts are pure and our motives unexceptionable.


If you feel this site is broken and needs mended, why are you not using the "Contact Us" button to contact TS directly to voice your concerns again? Or is this just a campaign to rally the troops to bombard TS with email suggestions on how he should administer his own forum?

Mustang;1316252 wrote: Spot, it sounds to me like you have already had a lengthy discussion with TS regarding the way he chooses to manage his forum. You stepped down, on your own accord, because you didn't like his final decision. Is that correct?



If you feel this site is broken and needs mended, why are you not using the "Contact Us" button to contact TS directly to voice your concerns again? Or is this just a campaign to rally the troops to bombard TS with email suggestions on how he should administer his own forum?


the contact us button sometimes dont workeither that or you just get ignored:-3no,, it must be that the button dont work sometimes surely?

Mustang;1316252 wrote: Spot, it sounds to me like you have already had a lengthy discussion with TS regarding the way he chooses to manage his forum. You stepped down, on your own accord, because you didn't like his final decision. Is that correct?No, I stepped down because I was accused in the moderator forum of applying double standards based on nationality. I gave a full account to that effect in my http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/journ ... ost1116516

If you feel this site is broken and needs mended, why are you not using the "Contact Us" button to contact TS directly to voice your concerns again? Or is this just a campaign to rally the troops to bombard TS with email suggestions on how he should administer his own forum?


I posted various facts into this thread because they were relevant to the question that had been raised. Since then I've joined in the general discussion. The facts I posted are irrefutable. Interpretations as to why those facts are true would be very interesting but so far I seem to be the only person attempting to make them.

I'd be very unhappy if any participants here were to "bombard TS with email suggestions", it would be underhand, unsporting and dishonourable though not entirely unprecedented.

theia;1316115 wrote: I haven't really noticed much difference in the moderating system, and now I'm wondering, "Why havent I?" or "What have I missed?" Or is it that it just hasn't affected me?




Have you been spamming? Have you been posting copy right material? Do you regularly campaign to get your enemies banished from the garden? No?



Then you may not even know we exist - go figure.:rolleyes:

kazalala;1316253 wrote: the contact us button sometimes dont workeither that or you just get ignored:-3no,, it must be that the button dont work sometimes surely?


it works, but just tombstone receives the messages.

I have only been contacted via email once from using the 'contact us' button.

spot;1316259 wrote:



The facts I posted are irrefutable.


Is anything you say refutable? hee heee

(not related to conversation of which I have no interest in)

flopstock;1316261 wrote: Have you been spamming? Have you been posting copy right material? Do you regularly campaign to get your enemies banished from the garden? No?



Then you may not even know we exist - go figure.:rolleyes: Do you know? I like you more and more with each day.

I'm a current Supporting Member of FG, in what will probably turn out to be permanent exile. I came in last week to collect one outside email address and learnt of the existence of this thread. I don't watch FG, and where I now spend my internet leisure is a place with no FG members, current or former. It sparkles.

I used to love Forum Garden. It was exciting. Sure there were brawls, and unpleasantnesses but these were outweighed by crazy merriment, good humour and stimulating conversations. In a word, fun. The structure of the forum is still great. It's probably the most user-friendly around, with lots of excellent features. I'm sad to see it dying.

A few random comments:

I noted with interest what gmc said about religious "discussion". Some of the threads I remember were more like gang rape than discussion.

Most of the people I know of who have left, over the years, have cited "irreconcilable differences" with Spot as one of the reasons for their departure. He was of course Chief Moderator for much of that time. I think all his comments in this thread should be taken as "playful".

Heavy handed, officious-appearing moderation is certainly off putting. But it all really comes down to proportion. If active obvious moderators are half the active posters in evidence at any one time.. it's going to feel like a school room. At best stultifyingly boring.

In open internet forums you are always going to get single issue novelists, loud mouthed yobs, ignorant nuke-everyone-who-disagrees-with-me good old boys, religious ranters, paranoid conspiracy theorists, people with mental health issues and seriously unintelligent life forms. But the impact of these folk is diluted by the large number of fine, vibrant other posters who spark each other and bring the whole place to life. It's a matter of proportion. And in my opinion that's the main problem in Forum Garden. The proportion's got out of balance.

Well said Pam :-6

AussiePam;1316330 wrote:

In open internet forums you are always going to get single issue novelists, loud mouthed yobs, ignorant nuke-everyone-who-disagrees-with-me good old boys, religious ranters, paranoid conspiracy theorists, people with mental health issues and seriously unintelligent life forms. But the impact of these folk is diluted by the large number of fine, vibrant other posters who spark each other and bring the whole place to life. It's a matter of proportion. And in my opinion that's the main problem in Forum Garden. The proportion's got out of balance.


Hello AussiePam... there's a vibrant undercurrent of repressed posting just bursting to get out here, I feel it. Do you?