(I think that the wearing corsets final shot person you are thinking of was Caroma, though I agree with the rest of your post.)

I think that the wearing corsets final shot person you are thinking of was Caroma

Yes, it was.

PMM, you have said that before, and I can see that it would be an unnecessary post to those not participating in the matches, but several participants have pointed out that they are useful for them.

And it certainly felt to me that I was being asked to justify my posting.

I'm really sorry. I guess I forgot it was backchannel, and thought it was something you had posted here in press. My memory must be failing me. My intention was to leap to your defense.

And also, I do have a pseudonym-- this is not my real name, so I suppose I was being a cow before.

(Oh, and to actually post something semi-contentful: I'm fine with things like the ferrets or zombies posting as ferrets or zombies, especially since it's generally pretty clear who the actual person behind it is. I didn't know that Lurkers was Cindy. I thought it was a cute joke at first, got confused a bit when I was seeing posts from the name that weren't part of the joke, and am now less confused since I know that Cindy's now using the name to post.)

So, I guess my feeling is, as long as each person has just one pseud for "regular" posts at a time, I'm fine with it. If someone starts using a different name for "regular" posts, then I think it should be clear that that's what happened. For things like the ferrets or zombies, I've usually thought it was pretty clear who was actually posting, and I thought it was funny.

PMM, you have said that before, and you I can see that it would be an unnecessary post to those not participating in the matches, but several participants have pointed out that they are useful for them.

I guess my issue is, if they're on the board, they can see that hey! Posts! and hop in. I don't see that the inconvenience to other people is outweighed by this slight gain in convenience to them, and I feel from my perspective like those who are inconvenienced have been told well, to hell with you if you don't have the time to stick around 24/7.

Of course, CAROMA. Well, jeez, I am very sorry, Cindy, for mistaking you. You guys a are not a bit alike. I won't edit my post so my massive dopiness will remain on record.

And here's where I feel I have to justify my posts in Press... (would this be apple or oranges?)

I guess my issue is, if they're on the board, they can see that hey! Posts! and hop in.

Except that there can be hundreds of posts if people haven't been in for a few days, and the Press posts allow them to jump to the start of the current day.

I don't see that the inconvenience to other people

Inconvenience? Because people have to skim past a post that doesn't interest/apply to them?

is outweighed by this slight gain in convenience to them, and I feel from my perspective like those who are inconvenienced have been told well, to hell with you if you don't have the time to stick around 24/7.

I honestly don't understand what you mean by this last part... To hell with who for what?

Except that there can be hundreds of posts if people haven't been in for a few days, and the Press posts allow them to jump to the start of the current day.

And hitting recent allows them to skip to where they can start participating. Dude, you're away from any thread, there can be hundreds of posts. The showthreads get Nilly, but F, C, or M doesn't. This, this is somewhere in between.

Inconvenience? Because people have to skim past a post that doesn't interest/apply to them?

If your bandwidth, personal, is 5 minutes a week, it's a pain in the ass to have to scroll through however many stop and start posts there are in there, and eats into that bandwidth.

I honestly don't understand what you mean by this last part... To hell with who for what?

To make this perfectly clear, it feels like you read the discussion, saw some posts in support, and said to hell with the concerns of the people who wondered if that's really why we have Press.

To make this perfectly clear, it feels like you read the discussion, saw some posts in support, and said to hell with the concerns of the people who wondered if that's really why we have Press.

That does make it clearer, thank you. And I didn't say 'to hell with' anyone or their concerns. I looked at those who complained, those who found the posts beneficial, and those who were indifferent, weighed the numbers and came to the conclusion that the benfit for those who used the posts was greater than the annoyance/inconvenience for those who disliked them.

I'm glad that I had a chance to clarify my reasoning - far too often people have ascribed motives to posters without giving them a chance to explain.

If it is the case that the harm to the board is greater than the benefit, then I will stop posting in Press. But that's not what I saw when I read Sartre when I returned from my trip. You, obviously, read it the opposite way.

The only way to settle this will probably be with a vote, and if you want to propose it, I will second you.