Kasim Sulton online chat synopsis (Copyright discussion)

[CarylB]

I have no intention of defending the fact that the ROL list is a private list with a confidentiality requirement. That it is so was agreed by the active list members, and it is by no means unique. I will, however, address and correct some points of fact. Meat said in the not too distant past:
Yes Open Forum, but not sit in my my room and just read words and make up what I want ... THe title says Meat Loaf UK fan Club .... op-ion yes, but putdowns, Lies and just plan being angry over what I don't know I will not tolerate
Like him I like what is being levelled at me to at least be accurate. I like the same to be the case for the ROL list and it's members.

When people join the ROL closed mailing list thay are asked to abide by the following:
Disagreements are fine as long as no-one attacks any other list members
Pictures and what people say stay here and should not be posted to any other person, list or website to invite criticism, and never without the invitation or agreement of the person who posts it.
And we don't indulge in gossip about Meat's personal life, or in debates about whether Meat is better than JIm Steinman or vice versa. Both are great talents in their own right, and both are respected here.
Oh .. and it's helpful if you're changing the topic of discussion to change the subject title of your email :)

The reason given is that:
the list is a relaxed place to be where we can have fun at times, share experiences and thoughts, and sometimes comfort each other when we're down, and to have this atmosphere we need to be able to speak freely without fear of being attacked or of having what we say being posted elsewhere around the internet.

I am going to include one opinion rather than fact here. This does not to me seem to bear any resemblance to the actions of ~~~~~~'s crack killer SS in Nazi Germany, and I think to suggest this is a lamentable thing to do. To bandy such terms about is imo to trivialise a shameful time in history, and is incredibly insensitive given the number of German people in this forum.

FYI Deb, no-one has said anything derogatory about SueW on our closed mailing list until she chose to make her comment about Vicki at the start of this thread. That since then people have commented on her action as being unnecessary and unreasonable is hardly surprising given the fondness which those who post on the list have for Vicki. (And I'll head off at the pass any suggestion that they would not have known about this unless I had raised it. Several of our list members are members of this forum, and had already seen it for themselves)

I have no idea what you mean when you compare this to "the same said people tipping Meat off when anything slightly negatives said about Meat." Who are these "people"? I can only respond for myself, but I have never "tipped" Meat off about something being said on a private mailing list about him.

As to your comment "... saying the things about Caryl that she has Sue on the ROL in the past few days", perhaps rather than make veiled suggestions you would care to say exactly what "things" I am supposed to have said? The ROL archives show that I have made only 5 posts about this issue, and in only two of them have I referred to Sue, and then I have only referred to her actions and not her person.

And David, as you say you agree with absolutely everything the awesome Deb had to say, perhaps you could please take this as a reply to you also. I recall you have said in this forum, comment on the actions and not on the person. I have done that and no more. No-one has been "stoned" on our list, nor has anybody's "good reputation" been dragged through the mud, ever. This week people have merely expressed their view on specific actions taken by two people, one whose name is not known. Common courtesy, respect, fairness, and dignity are precisely what we ask from people who join. People are expected not to copy posts to any other person, list or website to invite criticism, and never to copy posts without the invitation or agreement of the person who has posted it. When someone takes it upon themselves to violate this, people are predictably hurt and angry.


Deb you then made a further post and I would like to comment on these points:
A breach of confidentiality is just that. To refer on a private mailing list to a previous incident is not the same as bringing it up again in a public forum. No-one should infer from what you have posted that I am repeatedly saying things about SueW, because that is simply not the case.

Vicki made it clear that she was posting some points from the chat that referred to Meat. For it to "be turned into a Meat discussion" is imo entirely predictable and understandable on a list of Meat Loaf fans who rarely mention or discuss Kasim. None of our list members are daft enough to think that a Kasm on-line chat would just be about Meat! Vicki just posted some extracts from the chat, and that was clear from what she said.

I'm struggling a bit to understand your final point, and at a loss to understand why you bring the OIFC into this .. if you're suggesting that I say or encourage anyone to say anything derogatory about the OIFC on the ROL list you can, to quote a famous song, stop right there. I don't do this anywhere, and Vee and Wez (both of whom are ROL list members) know this. But in broad terms, yes, people are free to say what they want within the rules of the list. How often have I heard "Freedom of speech" quoted on this forum. And ROL list members should be able to expect confidentiality, ie the only people who will comment on what they say will be others on the list, because it is not a public list or public forum where you can expect any visitor to comment on what you say. (Just as when David/Jules set up a private list last year I am sure they did not expect correspondence from that to be posted publicly, nor passed on to people not on the list without agreement. Indeed this was made clear.) That said, it is not practice on the list to indulge in derogatory discussion about people, save the kind of thing one would expect on any mailing list, eg people expressing disapproval of Bin Laden, anger at someone who has abducted or murdered a child, or (because this is a Meat fan list) irritation at a negative newspaper review.

A private mailing list which specifically makes a condition of confidentiality should be able to expect just that. Ours is not one where people are generally talked about behind their backs, although at times people will get excited about negative reviews or unkind or untrue things said about Meat. In the same way they do not like people breaking confidentiality, nor attacks on other list members

[Winston]

Originally Posted by CarylB

I have no idea what you mean when you compare this to "the same said people tipping Meat off when anything slightly negatives said about Meat." Who are these "people"?

Vicki posted on this forum that she had told Meat of David's 'rant' about re-scheduling a show in the US. That's who 'these people' are Caryl. Your mate.

[SueW]

Another thing that all members ROL (and all Yahoo list members) have to agree to is the Yahoo's Terms Of Service which includes the phrase

"You agree to not use the Service to:

<snip>
upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights ("Rights") of any party;"

Vicki was in breech of this. As this was not the first time this has happened, I made it quite clear in my post and I also PM'ed Vicki to tell her after I had made this post and she agreed not to do it again.

[MEAT LOAF TRIBUTE]

I'm with Sue on this!

[Winston]

And as for being insensitive to the Germans or whatever you were going on about, you were very insensitive when you decided to take up art last year.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Winston

Vicki posted on this forum that she had told Meat of David's 'rant' about re-scheduling a show in the US. That's who 'these people' are Caryl. Your mate.

1. Vicki is not "people" plural. Deb's post implied that a number of people were doing this. And Vicki's action in drawing Meat's attention to the concern which had been expressed got David a reply from Meat .which apparently satisfied him

2. A public forum is different to a private list. We were talking about someone passing a post from a private list, with a confidentiality agreement, to someone not on that list, presumably for the purpose of causing trouble.

And on a more general point to SueW. When you were on our mailing list you knew that Vicki regularly posted extracts from your site, always acknowledging where they had come from, generally giving the direct link. I know she once wrote to you and asked if it was OK to do this. That she took your agreement then, and the fact that you did not after that ever mention or complain about her doing it was I think sufficient reason to presume you did not mind.

And when you did mind, all that was required was an email or pm to Vicki asking her not to. When you did, she immediately agreed, because that's the kind of person she is. What some, myself included, question is your decision to make the comment about her that you did in an open forum. It was unnecessary, and an unkind thing to do to someone who did what she did, not to steal any intellectual copyright, but in the innocent belief that you had no objection, and who immediately responded positively when you wrote to her direct.

What has angered Vicki's many friends is not that you have pointed out to her that she should not post material from your site, which you have every right to do, but that you chose to accuse her in public of breaching copyright, and in a forum where she is tireless in responding positively to people, and generous in sharing items of interest.

[R.]

Mmmmh ...

I just post my 3 eurocents worth here ...

(1) The copyright
It's quite easy actually.
Sue organised the chat, monitored it and typed the synopsis. The synopsis is her work. If you want to use this for your publication, you have to ask for permission - regardless if it's a private or a non-private publication. If you don't ask, you violate the owner's copyright, even if you give credit. If you had permission to publish something in the past, it does not allow you to publish something different of the same creator. You must ask again.

(2) Sue's reaction
Well, i don't know the complete circumstances, but if I had spent 3 hours of arranging and publishing that synopsis just to find it copied somewhere else just 5 minutes later, I would have been quite pissed off by that and might have reacted the same way.

Anyway, afaik & iirc, Vicki apologised and Sue accepted, thus the story is over. I don't see a need to discuss this until doomsday.
I do however miss Vicki's view of this. I see messages speaking for her, but where is her comment? She might have a different view of things.

[Di]

Holy COW!!

SueW, it appears I owe you an apology as well! I was given a link to this last evening via an email, and I just found out about your copyright request! I sent the link to the Jimlist earlier today, and I had NO idea there was any problem with it at all.

I have never heard of not being able to post links to materials on the net, and I am very sorry if I breached a rule here.

Di
... who did enjoy the information and updates though, is sooooo excited about the news of the US concerts that may be scheduled in the future, and is really curious as to the news that Bat III is possibly not farther along than what is shared here.

[original sin]

DavidD wrote:

I am going to take from this that you are saying it is wrong to drag someone's good reputation through the mud in public, but it is okay to stone them in the privacy of a "private" list? I would think common courtesy would be to live by the motto of treat everyone with equal respect, fairness, and dignity.

David you can take it anyway you wish, we have had numerous discussions about interpretation on here. I was trying during a very quick luch break to show a difference between something that is already in the public domain being pointed out and someone repeating a conversation intented for just a few. The topic of the conversation is irrelevant, just the issue that if feel you are amongst friends you should be able to express you feelings in that environement.
This is sounding like Sue has been slandered and personally insulted, I have not seen anything like that on the list only thoughts and feelings on the action taken.
I do not believe that any goes through life without saying words in anger, temper or frustration, this does not make them any less a person.

Seems there is an aweful lot of hate coming from certain corners of the room right now, which makes me horribly sad. I love each and every one of you from the very bottom of my piggies to the top of my platinum tipped locks.

It distresses me greatly that when ever an action is questioned or the like the implication is inferred that the motivation is hate. Why do you feel this is the case? I'm a reasonably mature enough woman to be able to say I don't agree with your action, with out feeling or being hateful.

[SueW]

Originally Posted by Di

Holy COW!!

SueW, it appears I owe you an apology as well! I was given a link to this last evening via an email, and I just found out about your copyright request! I sent the link to the Jimlist earlier today, and I had NO idea there was any problem with it at all.

I have never heard of not being able to post links to materials on the net, and I am very sorry if I breached a rule here.

Di

No, no....I saw your post to the Jimlist and that was fine as you just posted the link which is the correct thing to do. The same was done on a Todd Rundgren mailing list. The problem arose because Vicki copied things directly from my webpage - she didn't even post the chatpage link in her message to the ROL list.

SueW

[Di]

Originally Posted by SueW

No, no....I saw your post to the Jimlist and that was fine as you just posted the link which is the correct thing to do. The same was done on a Todd Rundgren mailing list. The problem arose because Vicki copied things directly from my webpage - she didn't even post the chatpage link in her message to the ROL list.

SueW

Thank you so much! I am very relieved! I felt very badly about it.

Was a very interesting transcript, and had some good news. :)

Di
.... back to the day and breathing....

[original sin]

Sultonfan wrote:

On most parts Sin I agree with you.

half way is always a good start

Caryl actually resurfaced a lot of this herself on the ROL. no one can blame people for letting Sue know what was being said about her.

I can only speak for what i have seen, and can say that any discussion has been after the posting on here referring to ROL and Vicki, and that discussion has been around the actions rather than the person, obviously linked with how list memebrs feel about it.

The content of the chat that was posted on the ROL actually seems to of missed out much of what kasim actually said and turned it more to a Meat related chat, which in fact it wasnt. Sue missed out on participating in that chat to get it all down for everyone, For her to see it turned into just a Meat discussion isn't very nice.

Well I suppose that would be because members of that particular list are primarily concerned with Meat! I can understand how Sue might feel, but all I was saying was I didn't feel that making the last line on the post was necessary, other ways would have been equally effective.

Also seems unfair that basically anyone on the ROL can say what they want about anyone here, the OIFC or anyone else, while anything anyone says here gets picked to pieces with a fine tooth comb, by the same people insisting their comments not to be repeated.

As I haven't seen that happen I can't express a view. But I have said how I feel there is a difference between posting on public forums and taking in a group, whatever the topic or subject matter is.

[Deb]

Phew Caryl where to start in reply to all this.... slightly blinded by words here, but trying to make sense of it and to work out which bits to reply to.

Just to put the record straight here, I also am a bit peed at a thread on Kasim getting hijacked by all of this, Sue and Vicki had sorted this out, you once again have fueled it by posting in defense of Vicki, and before you say it, Yes I have also for Sue, but i'm really sick to the back teeth of letting it all go by. so many threads have been hijacked in this way. Whats started off with two people maybe having a slight problem has often turned into ww3 (and no thats not belittling the war before you put more words in my mouth)

We don't all have as much time as others to put everything into exactly the right words. So sometimes what I'm thinking or trying to say, may come out slightly different. Which you seem to pick up on.

Back to the responses from you...

caryl wrote :
The reason given is that:
the list is a relaxed place to be where we can have fun at times, share experiences and thoughts, and sometimes comfort each other when we're down, and to have this atmosphere we need to be able to speak freely without fear of being attacked or of having what we say being posted elsewhere around the internet.

The same goes for here Caryl, even though its not written, I know for a fact that people feel the same way here about you, in response to them, me included.

caryl wrote :
I am going to include one opinion rather than fact here. This does not to me seem to bear any resemblance to the actions of ~~~~~~'s crack killer SS in Nazi Germany, and I think to suggest this is a lamentable thing to do. To bandy such terms about is imo to trivialise a shameful time in history, and is incredibly insensitive given the number of German people in this forum.

Don't even go there with trying to make every German in this forum think I'm geting at them, because I'm pretty confident that they know I'm not, I personally know many of them and they are the most genuine. nicest people I know, and have became very good friends of mine. For your information by SS I actually meant "Secret Squirrel"

caryl wrote:
I have no idea what you mean when you compare this to "the same said people tipping Meat off when anything slightly negatives said about Meat." Who are these "people"? I can only respond for myself, but I have never "tipped" Meat off about something being said on a private mailing list about him.

What I meant was: Vicki tipped Meat off about posts about Columbus thread.
You tipped meat off about the bootleg thread.

I know for a fact that very many people here, feel very uncomfortable about this, to have to feel that everything they post may get taken out of context and to get Meat pointed in their direction is no different to how you feel about what you say being pointed to someone else.

Just noticed you say you've never tipped Meat off about something said on a private mailing list, which could be taken to mean you have on here, I really don't think keep saying the ROL and here or anywhere else are different, just because you have people sign the confidentiality act, doesnt mean its ok to do it there but not here. Does R have to make this private to get the respect that the ROL wants? It should just be ok to have an unwritten rule for this.

caryl wrote:As to your comment "... saying the things about Caryl that she has Sue on the ROL in the past few days", perhaps rather than make veiled suggestions you would care to say exactly what "things" I am supposed to have said? The ROL archives show that I have made only 5 posts about this issue, and in only two of them have I referred to Sue, and then I have only referred to her actions and not her person.

Well as you ask what exactly here goes......

These are a couple of extracts from things been posted by yourself:

Secondly it was Sue Williams who, when she took my 9/11 card from this non-public mailing list and shoved it on her worldwide website posting the link in the UK forum to invite people to comment negatively on it, said:
The picture can be viewed at [...] but please note it is on MY server not the MLUKFC server so the copyright breech is not due to MLUKFC.
From this it would seem that Sue Williams, whilst she may not be able to spell "breach" of copyright consistently, is not above doing it herself for spite, whereas Vicki gave full acknowledgement to her source and passed the information on for the purest of intentions.

Picking on Sues spelling is pretty away from the point also dont you think, If we all did that everytime Meat posted you'd be continually on his back. Also to say Sue was doing it for spite wasnt just fact either.

My question therefore is, who here has informed Sue Williams of Vicki's innocent posting on our ROL mailing list so that the former can publicly criticise and attempt to incite disapprobation of Vicki and ROL? For as far as I am concerned you are not welcome in this small group, the rest of whom treat each other with love and respect, support each other and deserve better than having someone sneak off and break the confidentiality rules of our friendly ROL family list.

Why does that have to be the reason for someone telling Sue? Where has Sue tried to publicily critisise and incite disapprobation of Vicki and the ROL?

And to Vicki I say, I am so sorry my friend that you of all people, whose motives are the best, who only tries to freely share information which will be of interest about our beloved Meat, and who clearly acknowledged your source and so imo were guilty of no copyright violations, should be subjected to this kind of mean-spirited attack. Believe me, as one who was subjected to a disgraceful and sustained attack last year in the UK forum I know just how hurtful it is.

No one has said Vicki doesnt have the best motives, Sue was annoyed over one thing, it's all being blown way out of proportion.

Nothing will happen to Vicki, apart from being hurt by this nasty spitefulness, which of course is bad enough as she of all people does
nothing to deserve it! . All the talk of copyright is smoke blowing .. to say your material is copyright is not alone sufficient in law to protect
it. You have to register copyright, and keep registering updates, which is a
costly business. I know you will not have been responsible. But I see no
reason why we should tolerate this tittle tattling from the list, and we won't.

Once again, where was Sue nasty and spiteful???? There is no need for these type of comments on this. This isn't just fact. Who's tittle tattling? Me? Sue? not sure who you mean here, but who ever I dont see it as tittle tattling. And what ever anyones said ovwer here has been said openly, unlike this i'm reffering to here.


back to replying to your post on here:

Caryl wrote: No-one has been "stoned" on our list, nor has anybody's "good reputation" been dragged through the mud, ever. This week people have merely expressed their view on specific actions taken by two people, one whose name is not known. Common courtesy, respect, fairness, and dignity are precisely what we ask from people who join

I disagree, you have tried to drag Sues reputation through the mud, with how you worded all of the above i have quoted. How you said it isnt just views.


I'm struggling a bit to understand your final point, and at a loss to understand why you bring the OIFC into this .. if you're suggesting that I say or encourage anyone to say anything derogatory about the OIFC on the ROL list you can, to quote a famous song, stop right there

I said:
Also seems unfair that basically anyone on the ROL can say what they want about anyone here, the OIFC or anyone else, while anything anyone says here gets picked to pieces with a fine tooth comb, by the same people insisting their comments not to be repeated.

I wasnt bringing the OIFC into this, what I was saying is. That The ROL if they agree to confidentiality, can say anything about anyone, on the MLUKFC, The OIFC, The MOTS, The Mickey Mouse fanclub, or anywhere else for that matter. While the people on the forsaid lists cant say anything back. Does that make more sense?


You also say about freedom of speech, well Sue also has the freedom of speech in saying what she did, If you agree with it is another thing. But I fail to see why you have to continually jump on eevrything someone says and have an opinion. As someone once said, let things go. Then these long off topic threads wouldnt happen. Just an observation but the vast majority of threads that have gone this way have usually happened because you've done this. And i'm afraid to have to be the one to say it, but you do get peoples backs up with this. it makes them react and not always in the nicest way, just as It makes you react when something was said about Vicki.

Finally I fail to see the moral difference about being able to say things on the ROL and expect people who dont agree or find it offensive not to repeat it. yet Its ok to do it here. Hopefully Sue's name can take a break for a while, as I'm sure to be taking over in the firing line

Deb

[PanicLord]

For Crying Out Loud.

[Di]

My gosh!

I just read through this whole thread you guys.... *All* of you need major hugs! {{{hugs}}}

I don't know the entire background very well, but there is a lot of strong feelings here, a bit of hurt, and a large amount of angst being felt by some really nice people.....

(It certainly made me feel better about my current week on the net though....)

Di
.... sending warm wishes to all of you.... and hoping that everyone will emerge from this with lighter hearts!

[original sin]

Just to put the record straight here, I also am a bit peed at a thread on Kasim getting hijacked by all of this, Sue and Vicki had sorted this out, you once again have fueled it by posting in defense of Vicki, and before you say it, Yes I have also for Sue, but i'm really sick to the back teeth of letting it all go by

As I could be "accused" of being a guilty party to any any hijacking - I'll refer back to my earlier comments. IMHO there was no need what so ever to make referrence to what had been done. Indeed making the statement was inviting comment.
I believe it should have been dealt with in private between Vicki and Sue.
To me the statement was just as bad as making a child stand in a corner with the pointed "D" hat on, for everyone to point and stare. I had hoped we were above that.

[Deb]

My hearts still light Di

I've just spent the weekend and all the previous shows with some of the nicest people from here that i could wish to meet. So it couldnt be any other way..

Plus one thread doesnt effect the way I feel come another thread. As Sin said.. Each thread on its merits or something like that....

Deb

[Di]

Originally Posted by sultonfan

My hearts still light Di

I've just spent the weekend and all the previous shows with some of the nicest people from here that i could wish to meet. So it couldnt be any other way..

Plus one thread doesnt effect the way I feel come another thread. As Sin said ...Each thread on its merits or something like that....

Deb

Hi Deb!



Well... I love what you just wrote, and I am going to take that with me back into my own day.
... Each thread on it's merits and onto it's own.... I really love that! Excellent advice.

It it so great that the UK concerts have gone so well.... I *knew* I should have popped over for the London concerts. I did some poor planning over the holidays, should have followed Terry and Jules fine example....

Have a great day!

Di

[BadAttitude]

Originally Posted by original sin

As I could be "accused" of being a guilty party to any any hijacking - I'll refer back to my earlier comments. IMHO there was no need what so ever to make referrence to what had been done. Indeed making the statement was inviting comment.
I believe it should have been dealt with in private between Vicki and Sue.
To me the statement was just as bad as making a child stand in a corner with the pointed "D" hat on, for everyone to point and stare. I had hoped we were above that.

I agree with Sin this should have been handled between SueW and Vicki and should not have been posted on this forum. The only reason why someone posts an all ready settled dispute and make's it public is to make people take sides which is what has been done. How can you expect to publicly amonish someone without thinking that there friends will not stick up for them is beyond me. And since I am neither friends of SueW or Vicki's I am saying this as a Meat Loaf fan. Since it is being said that SueW PM'ed Vicki and told her that what she did was wrong and she apologized then it should have been dropped at that and not brought to everyone's attention. So the next time something like this happens why don't the concerned parties handle it through PM's and email unless you want to get everyone else involved this would be the best thing to do.

The very digusted with this whole topic.
~Autumn~

[Deb]

Just to set the record straight, Sue posted here, before It was took to pm.

Deb

[original sin]

Originally Posted by sultonfan

Just to set the record straight, Sue posted here, before It was took to pm.

Deb

Debs, either way, before or after my whole point one this one is I for one don't think here was the place.

[R.]

Originally Posted by BadAttitude

The only reason why someone posts an all ready settled dispute and make's it public is to make people take sides which is what has been done.

I think it was settled after Sue's post.

Originally Posted by BadAttitude

So the next time something like this happens why don't the concerned parties handle it through PM's and email unless you want to get everyone else involved this would be the best thing to do.

Things like that shouldn't happen at all.

[Deb]

Originally Posted by original sin

Debs, either way, before or after my whole point one this one is I for one don't think here was the place.

I understand what you mean Sin but maybe Sue was so fed up after spending so much time on something, to have it posted somewhere else without her permission. As has already been posted here, because Sue has given permission once, doesnt mean its granted automatically. I can understand that she wanted to draw attention to it. If my site was used without me saying so, I'd probably feel the same. I've spanet far more of my spare time on it than I can afford, and I'm sure the same can be said for Sue.

Deb

[BadAttitude]

R.

I don't mean to seem like I am draggin things out and I have nothing to win or lose either way in this as I am not friends with either of the two involved in this matter, it's just that the thread has been hijacked by nothing but arguing over a matter that should have been settled by the two individuals in question and I was just pointing out that as a Meat Loaf fan that I prefer to read post's about Meat and the band and not arguements that should be settled in private.

If this is wrong so be it, as I do not speak often but god there are so many more important things in the world to think about and care about then this. Meat is sick, people are going to be missing a concert that they so wanted to see.

Just pointiing out that these kind of arguments can and should be handled differently and that I thought it was time to get back on track.

~Autumn~

[original sin]

Originally Posted by sultonfan

I understand what you mean Sin but maybe Sue was so fed up after spending so much time on something, to have it posted somewhere else without her permission. As has already been posted here, because Sue has given permission once, doesnt mean its granted automatically. I can understand that she wanted to draw attention to it. If my site was used without me saying so, I'd probably feel the same. I've spanet far more of my spare time on it than I can afford, and I'm sure the same can be said for Sue.

Deb

Yes Debs I can quite see that Sue might have felt fed up, but calling attention to it - I think should have been to the person concerned in private, especially where it is obvious there was no malice intended in the act questioned. If this couldn't be resolved in that manner and was still an issue then I would whole heartedly support it being brought into the "public arena" and in fact would do so myself. But in this instance I don't believe that was the case.
I'm sure you and Sue like all the others running sites give a lot of spare time and funds to keep these upto date, I don't question that for a moment.
But the old adage two wrongs don't make a right does spring to mind.

I see you quoted me earlier and yes I always say each topic on it's own merit. This is something I really do believe and whilst I have publically and privately thanked Sue in the past for various things, I don't agree with her actions on this one, who know's where I'll land next time next time

I'm wondering if we should now free up the board and continue this in PM's or emails, so I'll invite anyone who wants to pass comment or thought on any of my posts or comments on this thread to contact me