Newer Poster Treatment

[Brian the Automator]

[ the main point is that today was not the first time somebody refered to brewerfan regulars as elitist. and it's not the first time somebody admitted that other posters tend to haze newbies for 6 months to a year before they were accepted. that is something i would like to see changed. ]

 

If some people view us as elitist because we have high standards, so be it. I'm not a big fan of new poster hazing, but there's a difference between a noob and a noob with attitude problems.

 

Since Billyhallfan's here, let's take him as an example... High school kid and pretty green when he showed up. He was plenty polite from the outset, even though it was clear that he wasn't really into the swing of things. I haven't seen many posters come as far in a short amount of time he has... that's really awesome, especially for someone of his age. I wish that I would have been so eager to learn in high school.

 

On the other hand, you have JonDoe who said he "only speaks the truth". That's going to seriously rub people the wrong way... I know it did for me. He started a second topic (the Bush one) which was short on facts and big on opinions... Given that people had a bad taste in their mouth and felt that this was another trolling attempt, I can understand the apprehension. Personally, I was willing to give him a fresh slate and just be factual with answers, and I WAS disappointed that other people didn't act the same way... but this wasn't a case of a gaggle of regulars harrassing an ordinary noob, so I didn't start throwing out discipline.

 

I would like Brewerfan to remain SOMEWHAT elite intellectually in nature... It's really what separates us from the pack. I don't think we should look down on other people, because they look for different things in sports and want to discuss it in different ways. We're baseball nerds, we're different. I want to live in a sanitized non-trolling environment where we don't want to have to deal with people ranting and venting. There are other message boards where more ranting and venting takes place, and people don't seem to mind. At the same time, I hope to attract and educate people who want to gain a different perspective on things, and I would hope that people would welcome them with open arms.

[Fatter than Joey]

i have a problem with fatter than joey's expressed attitude in his post above. he wants people to debate him and back up their points with factual evidence. he wants new posters to get up to speed and debate him at his level of knowledge. Why should we demand or expect any poster to get up to speed and talk to you at your level?

 

1.) I enjoy debate. I really do. Do I want people to back up their points with factual evidence? Absolutely -- what are my alternative options? Generally speaking, when people don't have evidence or data, they just present their argument louder. -- I want no part in that.

 

2.) Do I want posters to get up to speed? -- You are darn tootin' I do. I never engage myself in foriegn economic policy debates, for the simple reason, I am not well-read on the topic. I wouldn't debate Alan Greenspan on interest rates, I would certainly ask him questions, but I would not presume to debate him, because I am not up to his speed.

 

I'm not even sure what level you are at and how much i need to learn so that I can converse with you.

 

I will converse with anybody. I love talking about the 1970s-80s Brewers, and I have had a lot delightful conversations at Miller Park, with kids that had questions about those teams. Now, I don't want to hear "Bill Hall is better than Gorman Thomas", unless you have done some reading/research or lived through both eras.

 

I think people have a responsibility to understand what they are talking about before talking. -- Simple as that.

 

Should they just remain silent and not post?

 

There is a lot of conventional wisdom about silence and listening/learning. Should people not post? -- No -- ask questions, ask for opinions, etc... If you don't understand a stat speak up.

If I had lunch with Alan Greenspan, I would let him do all the talking

about interest rates.

 

Surely if they tried to engage you in a debate about stats, it would not be a fair discussion and would end up in a basic name calling session.

 

I don't know about this -- I stated Charlie Moore (1982) was better so far than Corey Hart -- someone posted a contrary informed opinion and that was that. Solid evidence always will trump the intelligence of a poster. -- Really that's all I am hoping for -- Informed debate. Most debates here rarely degenerate into name calling.

 

How about a new approach? Lower yourself to the level of the person you are talking to?

 

Why? -- I won't do this. I certainly will be civil, however, if people want to understand stats and the history of the Brewers, it should be their burden to inform themselves. I am not a big fan of dumbing down anything.

 

I think it's way past time for the "hazing" to stop.

 

I was never hazed. BFnet has been supercool to me from post #1.

 

there is no way a 9th grade poster can expect to engage in an intelligent conversation if the conversation is taken to a college graduate's level of complexity.

 

None of the discussion on this board requires college level education. What's wrong with a 9th grader learning how to

use statistics to predict things? The math isn't that hard. 9th graders can be civil and ask questions when something trips

them up.

 

Do you want it to remain an open forum where anybody can post their thoughts? or do you want to limit posts to only intelligent debate? if you look around, very few sports forums are focused on intelligent factual discussions.

 

I think there are plenty of threads on this forum that are neither "intelligent" or "debate". I like intelligent factual discussions, that's why I gravitate towards BFnet and not some of the ESPN sites that are populated by unmedicated ALLCAP ranting.

 

I think everybody here wants people to post their opinions, but doing so in a manner where grammar, spelling, factual data, etc., are all at least given a thought.

[splitterpfj]

I was never hazed either, in fact I had a totally opposite beginning here. I got a PM from a moderator, asking me to submit my first article to the site, about two months after I started posting regularly.

 

It's all in the approach. New posters should think about what they're saying..."I'm new here, this is what I think" will get you a lot further than "This is the way it is, and I say so." The regulars here have no business hazing new guys, and blatant sarcasm just isn't necessary.

 

This site is what it is because of the excellent information and the informed opinions that are shared here. Lowering standards is not the way to go, just make sure you're talking "to" a new poster, rather than talking "at" them. No one wants to be in that position, it's an immediate turn-off.

[jason21nl]

some might not be hazed..but i know for a fact some are...a few years ago, someone posted a thread about bringing Cirillo to spring training..that person got ripped on, along with saying things like, we might as well bring back yount, and some old time brewers...that he is to old, and no longer any good..that person has only posted a couple times since..a shame too, because that person knows a lot about baseball.

[mothershipconnection]

I am not a big fan of dumbing down anything.

Nor am I. With the constant influx of new posters, you couldn't dumb things down for new users because you ALWAYS have new users, so we'd have to stay at a level of discourse that isn't beyond a couple drunks in a bar.

 

My take on the whole situation is that the majority of idiots here were idiots somewhere else before. These are career trolls who aren't going to suddenly start making sense because the rest of us are civil.

 

I can think of very few posters with a troll-ish start who ended up being productive, and can think of only Reed as a respectable back-from-banishment case. I know if I were in Brian's position I'd never be able to be as patient as he is, because you just know that a new troll WILL be banned eventually, so sometimes it's nice to cut to the chase.

[1992casey]

---

If some people view us as elitist because we have high standards, so be it.

---

To me, these are some of the high standards this site should be known for:

• Netiquette
• Respect
• Decorum
• A degree of substance to a post
• Avoiding serial one-liners
• A cursory effort to spell, punctuate, and paragraph
• Not repeating the same thing over and over

---

I'm not a big fan of new poster hazing, but there's a difference between a noob and a noob with attitude problems.

---

Exactly. The new member who "inspired" this thread did just about everything he could have to not endear himself.

 

In addition to some of the issues mentioned, I believe he also scolded "everyone." We've seen longer-term members do this, too, of course. The flaw is that not everyone is on the same page.

 

I certainly do recall threads where people were unduly harsh to newbies who were being sincere and just trying to join in. However, in many (most?) of those cases, those being overly harsh would be rebuked by another member or a moderator.

 

While one opinion generally shouldn't be considered better than another, I guess the reality is that some opinions probably are fatally flawed. The trick in those cases would seem to be to respond with a bit of dignity and grace. We don't need to strip a person of his/her dignity in the process.

 

And even though some opinions may be fatally flawed, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's an embarrassment that they're posted here. The embarrassment comes in some of the responses.

 

As far as the stat stuff, I think it'd be cool to offer something that has more depth than what we have now. I don't have any suggestion as to how to best achieve that end, though.

 

Maybe for starters, people can add links to the SABR FAQ - First Draft thread, or even re-organize what's there right now. A quick glance suggests that there are probably some threads right in that forum that could be linked to via the FAQ draft.

[sbrylski]

I'm not a big fan of new poster hazing, but there's a difference between a noob and a noob with attitude problems.

 

Yes.

 

When I first joined, I don't remember any hazing. I believe my first post was about targeting Kelly Shoppach or Brian McCann to fill our organizational hole. But anyway, I wasn't too loud, and I came it without severe attachments to my own opinions. I learned a lot in just my first month here, and I felt welcomed. All I had to do was be nice, and listen to facts.

[Blazer25]

Quote:

---

Blazer, can you enable your ezInbox? I want to send a quick PM.

 

Yes please do, all members are required to have their ezInbox enabled.

---

 

Should be working fellas...I have had it enabled all along.

[Big Reed]

fatter than joey: I can respect your opinions. I may not agree with them. but I can understand where you are coming from. My views are different. they come from teaching junior high kids math. Some of our nation's school systems have just given up on trying to teach math and just gave in and gave them calulators. Wisconsin's educational programs are far superior than many other states even including the Milwaukee public schools.. FAR SUPERIOR. Expecting a high school student to be able to understand statistical formulas is expecting a lot - especially in Beardstown, IL.

 

Brian: I respect where you want to take this site. you want the discussions to be at a higher level than the other available sports forums. Your #1 goal in starting this site was to eliminate trolls. However, in doing so, you will always have others mocking this site as an elitist site.

 

I will readily admit i have not read all of john doe's posts. I usually only visit and post on three forums. And I only read 1/2 of the posts made. I noticed he has made about 50 posts. obviously some of his posts in other threads have rubbed others the wrong way prior to him starting the thread on bush. I don't need a link to his other posts. I'll take your word that he has been offensive in other posts.

 

sometimes i get too emotionally involved in trying to protect the rights of others. That's my nature. i've done it before and I'll probably do it again. that's also been my undoing. maybe i should have been a public defender. Am I really the only guy who was banished that was given a second chance and hasn't been permanently banished? I've always been kind of unique.

 

I think slyinski (SP) came up with a good idea about a tutorial, but yesterday's timing was not the greatest to bring up the idea. To echo and add to his suggestion; brewerfan does a lot of interviews, and also posts articles about potential hall of famers and writes other articles. Perhaps, rather than having a tutorial per se, brewerfan could post a couple of articles about the new stats being incorporated into the game. This would get the word out and explain the new stats and it would be open for anybody to read. the stats articles could be published much the same way as many of the other articles are published. in this manner. people could get up to speed and not think of the articles as a tutorial. I realize that much of the information is already included in many threads within the stats forum. but many people totally avoid going into the stats forum or read the threads posted there just by its very title. I also realize many articles on the front page also include information about stats. but I'm suggesting doing a separate article on stats and have it linked on the front page. if the person wants to get up to speed, he can read the article. if he doesn't, at least the information was provided, and you can provide it as a link/reference when questions arise about certain stats in other posts.

 

I doubt anybody will ever totally agree with my expressed viewpoints. but at least you know where I stand.

[Team Canada]

Should be working fellas...I have had it enabled all along.

 

 

Yeah, looks good. Thanks.

[iluvlamp]

Quote:

---

We need a statistical tutorial, somewhere to direct poster like this. This post is ridiculusly filled with such classic cliches and standard misconceptions about statistics and statistical analysis. We get this same type of argument a every few months, and it just leads to arguing, people go on the defensive, and people get banned. Vocal newcomers simply out themselves before they are ever in. Something to at least begin to educate on them on the mindset we have here would definately help newer posters get acclimated to the site and we could get a wonderful contributing member out of it.

---

 

This was sbrylski's qoute from the other thread. When I started posting I was called a troll and had Brian and the other Mod's crapping on me. But it was for a reason. I was posting stuff where it shouldn't go. I spouted on indignantly about how much JJ sucks. I took on the Mod's in a stupid fashion.

 

It has only been recently that some here have made me actually feel like I belong. Some, of course, still think I'm on crack. Point being, I toned it down to the point I even delete and/or revise my rants!! Politacal correctness run amuckhttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

Quite frankly, This site and Sackmann's are the only Brewer sites I respect. I'm glad I found all of you and you have added to my baseball knowledge in ways I can't describe. I LOVE YOU MAN!

 

More on point, I think jon was/is out of bounds and the leash you have extended him probably has been the Mod's longest I've seen.

[Fatter than Joey]

fatter than joey: I can respect your opinions. I may not agree with them. but I can understand where you are coming from. My views are different.

 

That's 100% acceptable -- If everyone agreed with me, I'd have no one to argue with. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

Expecting a high school student to be able to understand statistical formulas is expecting a lot - especially in Beardstown, IL.

 

Yeah -- Expecting a high-school kid to code is a lot to, but if they really want to, they can find a way to learn.

 

 

Your #1 goal in starting this site was to eliminate trolls. However, in doing so, you will always have others mocking this site as an elitist site.

 

Conventional wisdom tells us, you can never make everybody happy. Resturaunts are a good example of this, they all cater towards different clientel.

[TooLiveBrew]

Quote:

---

The new member who "inspired" this thread did just about everything he could have to not endear himself.

---

This is the most important thing to keep in mind. Especially addressed to Big Reed. After people (me included) tried a cordial approach with jondoe, he stuck out the barbs and brushed any subtle hints toward patience and knowledge off as not worth his time.

 

I was never hazed when I started here, nor do I see 'hazing' on this site. This is just a prime example of the Golden Rule. If jondoe had come in wanting to discuss, instead of rant and instigate, that would have been another great, informative thread on Dave Bush. But he didn't. I'm not saying that we, as responding posters, were 100% amicable, but that's what happens when you greet people with saber-rattling (forgive the pun). Sometimes they have one too.

[PKBadger]

It's been said before, but lurking for a couple weeks/months is probably the best thing to do before you start posting.

 

Last March, I started my first thread, entitled "Dana Eveland - I don't see the upside". This was based on him showing up 20 pounds overweight for camp and getting lit up on quite a few occasions. Plus I don't tend to have the attachment to prospects that many of our posters do - there's just so many people that are run through the minor league system that don't pan out. This, of course, does not apply to Gallardo, Braun, Inman, or Jeffress. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

 

(Side note: I still believe that I am right about Eveland....but I digress.)

 

Needless to say, the response was very anti-KegStand. But in the same respect, I probably could have formed my argument in a more persuasive way. I'm sure I came off as a "noob". But since I didn't act pompous about it like jondoe, eventually after a couple months of posting and chat room appearances I felt like a valued member of the BF.net community.

 

While I don't support "hazing" anyone, I don't have a problem with having a high level of expectations for the content on these boards.....it is OUR community, after all. That doesn't mean that we all have to value stats to the same extent, or even at all. It just means using logic and information to support your opinions.

[mothershipconnection]

I was never hazed when I started here

Nor was I, and I barely knew what OPS and WHIP were, while I'd never even heard of VORP, FIP, OPS+, and many other stats.

Still, I didn't come out and say "those numbers are all stupid, he's a crappy player and that's it". Instead, when someone argued with me, I'd respond with "tell me how you came to that conclusion", and they may or may not have been right once I looked into it.

 

Sometimes you start out with what you don't think is a position popular with sabre dudes, and find out that it's actually supported. I remember a debate I got into when I came here over a player who had good OBP, but I saw something in him that troubled me - it turns out later that my exact point was that he had "old player skills" and was declining because of it - but I didn't know that was actually a validated phenomenon.

[strawbossisevil]

I agree to an extent of what everyone has said in this thread. That said, jondoe was out of line himself. First, his thread title called out the entire Brewerfan.net community, with an attitude that said that we are content with a rotation that would have a "sucky" Dave Bush in it. He based his numbers solely on ERA, and was given plenty of reasons why his judgments just weren't accurate. And instead of realizing that he may have made an error in judgment he dug in his heels. He made personal attacks on the people here, saying that they don't watch games etc. And were people really that snide in their comments? Seems to me, that most were just stating the facts.

 

I really think the elitist poster thing was not actually as severe in that thread as some are making it out to be. There were a lot of people listing stat after stat proving him wrong, but since it was a stat based argument to begin with, I really don't see a problem with that. And as was pointed out, most of the "name calling" actually wasn't, and after reading the thread the only poster who struck me as being involved in "hazing" is a relatively new poster himself.

 

The point is this, this site is about looking at things in depth, especially statistically. We might not always agree in certain statistics, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't expect some disagreement when we declare an absolute truth over something we haven't really researched all that much. Its being willing to say, either "I have a lot to learn" or "Agree to Disagree", both of which I didn't see much of from Jondoe. If people want to post like that, there are plenty of places where that is the norm, this site is for open minded discussion of statistics and opinions. All posters, new or old, ought to have a willingness to learn, not just to teach.

[DHonks]

Nor was I, and I barely knew what OPS and WHIP were, while I'd never even heard of VORP, FIP, OPS+, and many other stats.

 

What's WHIP?

 

seriously, I enjoy these topics. I think I kind of jumped at someone in the offseason when they posted their 25 man roster. The only analysis the newbie provided was, "Discuss amongst yourselves."

 

I said something like "yes, that's a very nice roster, and one we all could have put on paper. But when you--and many others--start threads like this and provide no original insight, it really does not contribute to the site. So please provide some original commentary about why this roster is good/bad/etc." I then was criticized for being too harsh with the person.

 

It's times like this where I sometimes wonder if Brewerfan.net should have a newbie forum where some of the more immature behavior/commentary can exist, with occasional prodding from the mods and veteran posters. With an active presence of regulars to nurture the good qualities of brewerfan.net and proper etiquette, they might feel less intimidated them to post on the main brewerfan.net boards. I'm not saying to make this a VIP board or invitation only, but perhaps one fundamental flaw is that brewerfan.net has evolved to the point where the common fan is being left out. Let's face it...how many of us can mention stats found here around our friends, family, and co-workers? So by catering to our fellow brewerfan.net junkies, are we ignoring the masses? It seems to me that the stats-literate brewers folks probably make up less than 5% of the fanbase. Yes, there's plenty of irony that I'm making a post about stats, and making up a stat.

[strawbossisevil]

Quote:

---

It's times like this where I sometimes wonder if Brewerfan.net should have a newbie forum where some of the more immature behavior/commentary can exist

---

 

I thought we already had one, it's right here. Link

[RobertR]

I wasn't at my best behavior in that earlier thread either.

 

I do think it's important to admit that stats have strengths and weaknesses (I sometimes regret teaching people that AB x OBP x SLG = Runs Created approximately) and many of those stats are narrowly defined. However, I think we'd all agree that where arguments occur is not in defining a stat, but defining what it means. That's where arguments tend to occur. Saying Bush had an ERA over 4 is accurate. Saying an ERA over 4 is lousy is where debate arises.

 

I also think it's important to distinguish between statistics and metrics like VORP or WARP. I trust them because they've been vetted and appear to make sense, but they're only estimates. The actual value of a Replacement Player is certainly debatable. Metrics are simply numerical methods of saying what statistics actually mean and while they're potentially more useful than simply pulling out a statistic or two, they're less accurate and their assumptions are subject to debate.

 

I perhaps think that part of it is being tired of going over the same old things every year. I can't wait for this year's "Do Strikeouts Matter" debate.

 

Robert

[laserbomb]

I recently felt the need to take a break for some of these reasons. I do appreciate knowing the community of people is here, and especially the large handful who apply so much time, energy and research to baseball and the Brewers. I think sports are a lot more fun when there's some knowledge and passion involved, and there?s definitely a lot of both here.

 

I generally don't think I have much unique to offer in the Major League forums that's not already well-covered by the time I get to it. If something interests me I?ll look into it pretty thoroughly, but a year after graduating I?m still burnt out on school so I generally take it easy and keep it fun. I?ve learned a lot about baseball in the last year, enjoy watching more for it, and am ready to pick up more along the way at my pace.

 

At times there seem to be diminishing returns, or if I check in too long or too often it can sometimes take a lot of the fun out of the whole thing. Sometimes because there?s only so much going on to talk about before it all gets old. Sometimes because of some sniping, or especially I-am-but-a-thinking-man-and-this-is-mere-common-sense,-it's-so-pleasant-up-here- on-my-hill-knowing-everything-and-I-don't-mind-if-I-imply-you're-a-fool-for-not-joining- me-up-here. So many people get into sports mostly to argue. Maybe it?s couched in polite words, but if it feels condescending that?s going to override everything else. It doesn?t really matter who, because if it?s not easy to skim the names column before reading posts, it?s always easy to close the window and take a little break.

 

There's a big difference between elite and elitist. I get sick of the words elitist, pretentious, they get pounded into the ground even though it's only because so many people act that way. But sometimes it seems like the consensus biggest goals are conflicting once in a while:

 

-Getting big or popular seems to be desirable to many. But sometimes the direct effects of growing aren?t welcomed. There are surely a lot of great baseball minds and Brewer minds who haven?t found the site yet. For every one of them who finally does, I?d guess there will be a lot more who don?t fit the ?ideal.? So we have rules in place to deal with that, and I think it?s a great step to take as long as they?re consistently applied.

 

-We want to be the best resource available to fans, superfans, and incredibly knowledgeable superfans. But the stated goal is to create more incredibly knowledgeable superfans, and if that?s not you for any reason you should probably know your place, and really it?d be best if you mostly keep quiet too and just observe unless you?re politely, deferentially asking for a sip of knowledge.

 

-Mention us on ESPNews, it?ll get licked up here. But the whole place was founded after what if I?m not mistaken was the last straw or six on ESPN boards. I guess the benefits of working hard to expand aren?t very clear to me, based on the mission statement. The site improves and it speaks for itself, doesn?t it make a lot more work to take it much beyond that? I mean the team already knows about the site, and beyond that there?s a strong loyal group to keep things going. It?s hard to see insider posting increasing as the site grows. I know it?d be stunning and be great to feel a tangible impact as fans if a Schilling-type thing happened here and affected a signing. But whatever we?re fighting for, I hope we?re having fun with it.

 

As much as so many take the sport and their arguments very seriously (I also think it?s great that there?s a forum for these discussions, and they?re one of the most valuable parts of the site to me), I think most here would say they stop by for entertainment. For some it?s seeing Lasorda getting knocked on his ass in Sheets? first all-star game, and for some it?s seeing how many people will recognize the funny quote from TV, movie or music. Many of us have sarcasm in the wheel of our senses of humor, but even with blue font the internet is still a tough way to convey that a lot of times. Even when people think they're harking back to Mark Twain trying to tease people ?politely.?

 

What if there was an ezBox or something to send complaints to? Someone gets 10 reasonable arguments made against them and they get a chance to speak their side and then some kind of grand warning. Maybe it?s less fun for them now, maybe they hang around less. Maybe it was debatable whether the grand warning was justifiable. I?m not sure exactly how to bring the most satisfaction to the greatest number of people (or otherwise priority satisfaction to some desired subset of members). It?s ridiculous to make it more like a fraternity or something, but in a lot of ways it?s just so hard to decide where to draw the line. Here?s an example, I can?t really do it clearly without pulling out a couple names . Russ seems to rub some people the wrong way, but I generally see where he?s coming from and it hardly ever bothers me. On the other hand, voices like Al?s or Toby?s do on occasion. I can?t necessarily explain it, even, and sometimes it's the same kind of tactics, so I can?t describe 100% of where it comes from. I understand these are all people who have been around the site a long time and generally contributed a lot of time and energy. But what do you do and how do you do it? Likely it?s all already fine or best the way it is.

 

I know that?s a lot of work. Maybe some kind of inbox for compliments, too, and maybe after 50 they could have the opportunity to be another moderator if the current mods agree or something. I don?t know how you all do the work you do for the site, but I know there?s a large enough loyal following here to want to help take care of it in whatever way they can.

 

It can feel nice to feel like an authority, or especially "the authority" and sometimes it's easy to push it in these conversations. The same way, who doesn?t want to be known as entertaining as well as enlightening, thought-provoking, you know? Who would rather not show up in the Poster of the Year thread? : ) It?s pretty natural to a point I guess, but I also think it?s sometimes misguided, or otherwise taken to the level of trying to refine some schtick, maybe wanting to get a start as a sports columnist or some bullroar alternative media or something. As long as everyone's feeling good, it doesn't matter much. I don?t have anything close to a problem with anyone here, the irritating situations mostly revolve around people taking themselves very seriously without fail or being condescending (as irritating as a couple other traits can be), and they don?t hear about it from me because it?s as easy as clicking the X.

 

I didn?t feel like I had to get anything off my chest or bust a nut or anything, and probably didn?t even make a cohesive point. I maybe have passed up Reed or a previous record of mine for the longest post on file. But I only weighed in because I thought I had a few relevant, reasonable things to say; the way this thread?s going there arguably seems to have been a little issue going for a little while; and I type kind of clearly or spell pretty well at least. Um, in closing, if you made it all the way through, you?re a sucker, and if you didn?t read it you?re an even bigger sucker. I?ll just go ahead and retract that right away and get back to where I started: you?ve got a great thing going here, and anything else will work out like things do.

 

 

(edit: split long line to kill sideways scroll --1992casey)

[And That]

Russ seems to rub some people the wrong way, but I generally see where he?s coming from and it hardly ever bothers me. On the other hand, voices like Al?s or Toby?s do on occasion.

 

People are always saying how Al and I are similar.

[DHonks]

People are always saying how Al and I are similar.

 

 

like peas and carrots...or wait, is it like dogs and cats?

[Katuluu]

[And That]

Am I the cat or the dog?

[Brian the Automator]

The cat's just tenderizing the dog.