Have you noticed, Annie Girl, that forgetting the loudmouthed but otherwise inept and forgettable christofras, that although I have entertained similar stupid and pointless exchanges with lighthouse before, these have only occurred as a consequence to his uninvited and unwarranted elbowing-in to my threads.

I am not interested in what he has to say and unlike him, I do not go out of my way to seek out his posts.

When I do happen to stumble across one, I do not consider it an opportunity to make a bloody nuisance of myself.

He knows full well that I take no notice of his insults, they are, after all, so clichéd as to be boring.

So what does he reasonably expect to achieve?

His motives are obvious in that he shut up as soon as I appeared to have gone off this thread but promptly reappeared and started mouthing off again the moment that I posed a couple of very pertinent questions.

That his sole desire is to disrupt is obvious and I regret that I am very close to placing him into the Bogan category.

Rob.

Nightski, that you have shown your willingness and intent to overhaul the section is a ray of hope for it as it was undeniably drifting away from both the expectations of general members and your intent as you outlined it when still in the section's infancy.

You recognize that both the quality and consistency of the critique was under scrutiny and quite naturally deduce that the solution is to “recruit” people who are “qualified”.

Some immediate questions that spring to mind….

Qualifications:-

You require people making application to have formal critique experience.

What does that mean? Professionally? Having successfully completed training? As a judge or critic for a competition?

If so, singularly or as part of a panel? Of what level of competition? Would having done that on only one occasion suffice? If not how many is the minimum?

Your “interview”.

How will that operate? Will there be a number of set questions? If so, who will pose them? Are you intending to post the list of questions? Will prospective applicants have to travel in order to attend? Will you be the interviewee or will you be one of a number of people on an applicants’ evaluation board? What are the required qualifications for people sitting on such a board? If you are a part of the selection team, what are your qualifications? What are the minimum requirements for prospective applicants? Will you be lowering those minimum requirements if insufficient interest is demonstrated? If so, to what level will you relax your standards? How many critics are you requiring? Will one be enough? What if that is all that you can attract? Will you be advertising your minimum qualifications?

I have obviously not digested or considered your new policy to anywhere near the extent that you have, however, I am sure you will answer these and all other questions which will come to my humbly informed mind at such time as when your full plan is released.

Rob.

I kept playing the three stooges until all the sensible and intelligent members were disgusted with their deliberate disruptions as a demonstration to all.

They put up a valiant effort and for me at least it was agonizing to watch them try so hard to come up with something remotely intelligent to counter me with.

Is it not interesting however that as soon as I slammed the door on them and they realized that their taunts were no longer acknowledged, meaningful comments and ideas returned to the thread.

Perhaps it could be worthy of consideration that when next, not if, they infect threads with their trolling, members unite in drumming them off the thread.

Rob.

This is the only tactic you have, same old bs, doesn't work with me. You are not man enough to actually answer a very valid question. Why are you here on this board? Is this the only outlet for you to make yourself feel superior to others? If we are so dumb, surely you should have no issues answering our questions, right? Instead you ignore them. But I can tell you again, only in your small world are you anything special. Like how pathetic is it for you to try to put down people on a photo forum in order to feel better about yourself? Thank god I have a fulfilling life. You must really hate people like that. It sure shows in your replies.

Among or amongst.
Among is the earlier word of this pair: according to the Oxford English Dictionary, it first appeared in Old English. The variant form, amongst, is a later development, coming along in the Middle English period. With regard to their meanings, there’s no difference between among and amongst. They’re both prepositions which mean:

situated in the middle of a group of people or things:

belonging to or happening within a group:

I was amongst the last to leave.

indicating a division or choice between three or more people or things:

You, christofras, are so damn easy to shoot down in flames it is almost frightening!

Idiot.