That of which we must not speak? Posted Mon Oct 16 15:57:57 BST 2000 by 'Farmer Barleymow'

I was a regular reader of the SOTCAA forum until the day it went belly-up around the time of the Mr Yoko-um unpleasantness. The NotBBC site also seemed to have e-died, so after a few tries to access it in the days ahead, I gave up. Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered the other day that not only was the NotBBC site back online, but there was a forum containing many contributors from the SOTCAA site. My question is simply this: what happened to SOTCAA? Can anyone enlighten me? I notice the subject isn't covered in any previous threads. Why?

Subject: Re: That of which we must not speak? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'Richard' on Mon Oct 16 16:15:40 BST 2000:

See the Thread 'TV Forum' which you'll find by clicking the 'Old Topics' button.

Cheers,

Subject: Re: That of which we must not speak? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'Farmer Barleymow' on Mon Oct 16 16:26:40 BST 2000:

Thanks. I've just read Rob's initial posting, after which I promise not to speculate any. I'll get me a coffee and settle down for a long read of the rest of the thread...

Subject: Re: That of which we must not speak? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Mon Oct 16 18:24:49 BST 2000:

That thread doesn't actually explain anything. Maybe it would prevent speculation if a better explanation was given. It might even stop it happening again, whatever it was.

But we won't get that, so I'm just wastefully wearing my fingers down...

Subject: Re: That of which we must not speak? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Justin on Mon Oct 16 18:41:42 BST 2000:

Surely you can understand *why* we're not given an explanation, though?

Subject: Re: That of which we must not speak? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By 'Anonymous' on Mon Oct 16 18:46:39 BST 2000:

Not really. It seems you know more than me, so maybe I should keep my trap shut. If it's not being exaplained because it can't be, then I've no problem with that.

Subject: Re: That of which we must not speak? [ Previous Message ]
Posted By Justin on Mon Oct 16 19:00:14 BST 2000:

>Not really. It seems you know more than me, so maybe I should keep my trap shut. If it's not being exaplained because it can't be, then I've no problem with that.

Sorry, that's what I meant - it was a bit of an oblique posting, I appreciate. I don't exactly know what's happened either, but Rob S asked us to keep schtum, and I think we all respect the reasons why.

[ Add Your Comment On This Subject ]
[ Add Your Comment Quoting Message ]