Apologies

[St Marys]

I appreciate what you are saying,   but I have a problem with forumites being "made" to censor our threads and comments to cater to Twitter and the impulsive nature of presumptuous folks who don't or can't read a thread and learn its genuine intent.  It makes our forum more rigid than it should be.  We should not have to walk on eggshells to be sensitive to clumsy technology. The machine is broken, not the forum...for now anyway. At the very least, Twitter users should understand that not everything is literal.  Hopefully in the future the technology will be improved upon.

+ 10

[LennG]

 I also found the original thread to be humorous and replied in kind. I guess it wasn't the content of the thread that we are talking about, just the title. If so, we just have to be more careful as to what we put up as a title.

Thanks for the apology, which really wasn't needed, but since you made the effort, apology accepted and on to bigger and worse problems.

[MightyGiants]

I have a lot of respect for Go Nets for apologizing.  I am not too thrilled with those people that thought something positive came out of the fire Coughlin thread thread.  Mocking Giants fans is not particularly funny and that might explain why there wasn't much laughter (I appreciate that wasn't goNets intentions but I am not so sure of others).   I am even less thrilled with those people that had no respect for me and Ed and what we tried to explain in terms of Twitter and how important it is to BBH.   I have to wonder if people think this site runs itself and that countless hours (and dollars out of my pocket) are not spent by the moderators resolving issues, bring quality content here, expanding the group's reach and ensuring a steady stream of new members.   I would have to think if they did, they certainly wouldn't have reacted the way they did toward Ed and me.     

[TONKA56]

I am even less thrilled with those people that had no respect for me and Ed and what we tried to explain in terms of Twitter and how important it is to BBH. 

If you feel that MY questions and opinions constituted a lack of respect or appreciation then I was misunderstood. I just don't like this new concept that our thread titles have to be "Twitter sensitive" because it is creatively restricting. It's the machine I have an issue with, not the moderators. I feel we have enough rules of etiquette and censorship as it is. I absolutely do respect the privilege of socializing on this forum and I do appreciate the work that you and the moderators do here to make it possible. 

[MightyGiants]

I am even less thrilled with those people that had no respect for me and Ed and what we tried to explain in terms of Twitter and how important it is to BBH. 

If you feel that MY questions and opinions constituted a lack of respect or appreciation then I was misunderstood. I just don't like this new concept that our thread titles have to be "Twitter sensitive" because it is creatively restricting. It's the machine I have an issue with, not the moderators. I feel we have enough rules of etiquette and censorship as it is. I absolutely do respect the privilege of socializing on this forum and I do appreciate the work that you and the moderators do here to make it possible.

No one demanded, we asked.  We also respectfully explained.   There are actually some members that like the idea that players and sports writers visit our forums as a result of our Twitter exposure.  Others like the fact that so many people see what they write.   Everyone benefits from the influx of members.   Yet some people think being asked to be mindful to use good titles (which even without Twitter is just good manners for your fellow posters so they know what they are clicking into) seems to be too much to ask.