After four or five years of utter neglect, often bordering on contempt, a renegade editor has suddenly discovered (or is it rediscovered) BOTF. But absent a policy statement vis a vis the pattern in which the blue checks have appeared defies easy interpretation; a cut&paste, a vaguely amusing rumination on hotels and fondly remembered assignations, an essentially straightforward conjecture on the Supremes and the ever amibiguous Second. What does it mean? What direction should our scribblings take? Wrigily puppies want to know. How long before the mystery editor realises (once again) BOTF is the outcast board, the board without a regular (or an irregular, for that matter) front page column to support it, the fray equivalent of India's untouchables, an island without it's Father Damien? How long before we're cast back into the darkness, a land without light, without succor, without blue checkies? Oh, the humanity!

They're blue? Who knew! They look green when they leave my magic Fray marking pencil.

I think a policy statement might make it too easy for you, much better to keep you guessing. Especially people who have been posting as long as you have, Mr R. Now what color was your star?

Moira Redmond

Fray Editor

simply ignore the editors, as has become our habit over the last half decade. I have the timeline correct here? And just write whatever pricks our flighty interest at the time and let the check marks fall where they may.

Actually one notes that these checkmarks fall upon the lightweight and the meaningless on the whole. Cleverness seems to be the only standard criteria for selection. There you have it, that's what the editor or editors wants from the BOTF board, lightwight but cleverly written missives on non-controversial subject matter.

Myself I prefer to put some meat, or at least some sting, into my writing. So no check marks for me! Whatever shall I do? Alas!

not likely earn a star under the current editorial administration, eh?

You know these are not just random bitchings about the typically haphazard methodology of check mark selections. We KNOW that the checkmarks generally go to people that tend to write breezy and cute and essentially meaningless essays. That's okay, but don't then return and pretend that it's suddenly going to start going to the people capable and willing to tackle dragons in their postings.

The pattern has been established for quite some time now, and we know where the stars would go were they to return. Not that any of us want the stars to return. It's better to be equals among peasants rather than have an arbitrarily selected [you ARE aware of how Kevin Arnovitz selected stars the second time around?] stars for brown-nosers.

but since, as you say, only the lightweight and meaningless are being singled out for recognition (yes! my forte!) surely you and your loyal coterie can take comfort chewing on the meat of your own brilliance.

"Mediocrity is never pernicious unless we begin to call it something else, statesmanship and sound sense," or in this case editorial judgment.

Redmond is simply continuing the cretinous illiteracy of her predecessor. Her job is to enforce the secondary citizenship of fraysters. She does that with flair, but what else can one expect from a recycled has-been?

Now that hurt.

Did that hurt too?

Over the years, we've seen the occasional checkmark but it has been a rare occurance and always accompanied by bitter comment from the management. The checkmarks fell haphazardly as though from the pocket of a passing stranger, as though the only purpose they served was to announce the editor's presence and capriciousness. To the degree the good old days were in fact 'good', it is indisputably true some part of their goodness derived from the smaller, more intimate community and the lack of other competing internet sanitariums but it is also indisputably true they were 'good' because of your pleasant disposition and good taste. My star, though gone these many years, was of the brightest gold. The thought of it makes me weep. ; )

You're just not a very nice person, are you ass face?

Jack

Absolutely smack on target. Very well put, as have been your recent postings on political matters for which you are getting big time Obamaed for telling the truth. Be not disheartened. Nothing you've said was off the mark and I think most of those detracting do not understand that it is the process and not the candidates that you are addressing which. leads of course to the candidates because they are part of the process they would in fact be... processed meats.

It warms my heart when others say what I am thinking and do it at least as well and with fewer words.

decency, you'll remove it immediately! I feel, I feel,...well, I feel dirty all over. I feel like ender!

Because this is your preferred element, the fetid silage pit. I'm glad you did because I wanted to say I've been enjoying the heck out of your posts lately. I don't know, maybe it's the whole fake misanthropy pose. And yet, if anybody round here truly characterizes secondary, derivative relevance it is surely you. You're not even a good parody of yourself any longer.

See what I mean?

I rest my case.

Jack