Looking for a theatre director

Thanks Don. Good comments. You're exactly right. My rant was indeed replying to the (at least) three posts that existed prior to mine which, taken as a whole, were displaying stupidity and causing the replier from Melbourne to look at Perth with disdain. For this reason I felt the need to apologise. At no time in my first post was I singling out any individual. It didn't seem necessary at the time to be 'entirely clear as to which words are describing which post', as I was complaining about the group mentality. The plural of 'stupidity' is still 'stupidity'. For this reason though, each individual should not have taken my criticism so to heart...unless they wanted to claim responsibility for the cumulative effect of the others? It was the overall effect I found appalling, not any single element. You say 'Musical Mum takes the brunt of the criticism'...but you'll notice she CHOSE to take the brunt - it was never aimed at her specifically. MusicalMum obviously felt strongly about it all and took me on, claiming that what I had said was wrong and beside the point. So naturally, I defended the argument I had made and replied...providing several points which I felt were (and still are) relevant. Musical Mum wrote another emotional torrent (some might say embarrassing; I wouldn't now dare). I will respond to one or two of those points in a sec (making it clear for you Don, exactly who I am responding to, to avoid further confusion). But a telling moment is when she says "Despite your little arrogant rant about MY 'limited vision'.." This is exactly what I was saying above about claiming responsibility. My original statement was that 'the ARTS SCENE IN PERTH has limited vision'. Somehow MusicalMum had chosen to OWN this criticism when I had never drawn such an inference or directed it at her. Somehow she took it as a personal insult, but I was intending my arguments to the topic in general, not to any individual target. Do you remember anyone at school shouting 'Hey dickhead' and then laughing at the person who'd embarrassed themselves by turning around? MM stepped into the line of fire of her own accord...this was my reason for latching upon her re-use of the word 'embarrass' to end my second post - which I admit was a personal comment, but now you'll see why I thought so. Unfortunately, as at school, the person who just called themselves a dickhead gets angrier and more foolish, so I now do regret the whole comment. Rather than curtailing any embarrassing tauntings, it appears to have provoked more. Note, Don, that when you say 'much has been blown out of proportion here', I agree; but when you then attribute that to my original posting I do feel inclined to disagree. I attribute it to the REACTION to my posting. HOWEVER I have now read around and seen that in MM's response to Eliot she admits that she took it quite personally. She apologised to El about the tone of her postings. I hope when she realises that I did not in fact personally attack her, and that she oughtn't to have taken it so personally, then she and I will return to simple logic (which never pisses me off), and can continue our argument in a civilised manner. Hence, to now respond to some of MM's points: "I think that posters of auditions and productions from all States should make use of the State filter." Does it really make a difference? I'm pretty sure I have my filter settings to 'browse everything' and I've never felt inundated or confused by anything from other states here, ever. I've already over-stated my point about how easy it is to look up info if it's not included about a venue. So what was the big deal? Na's comment was quite a telling one. Residing in a non-WA state, she has doubtless been inundated with posts over the years that have been WA-centric from this largely WA-driven site, yet it doesn't seem to have effected the usefulness of this site to her? So my question has always been: Do we need a state filter? What does it really do of benefit? And is it worth getting uptight and belligerent about? I read all of MM's post entitled "My my..." and I can't fault any of her argument that not many people would fall into my category of being interested in relocating states. But she must concede that in the small percentile of cases I referred to, my points were valid. Yet in the large percentile she refers to, she still haven't convinced me that it is SUCH a problem to be presented (or not presented) with this information. I'm yet to understand WHY Labrug finds it so 'frustrating' and why this petty argument had to occur in the first place? That was the reason for MY frustration - I just don't see why the original poster needed to be berated..? What's the problem? You don't believe I'm stupid, so you conclude I'm deliberately obstinate. I'd agree on both counts! I've already been self-proclaimed as arrogant (at least in my online persona). I'm sorry if I have sounded condescending - that's perhaps a by-product of being arrogant, but not intentional. I naturally assume that people who want to argue with me here are prepared to have their argument dissected and thrown back, and I treat every argument on its merit. Right or wrong, I too simply enjoy getting stuck into a debate...feel free to continue exercising those 'debate muscles' against me! I take it we must have met and are going to be participating in Spontaneous Insanity's Theatresports together? Sorry I don't know which musical mum you are, but I hope to enjoy more friendly debate with you over a coffee break sometime, if you choose to reveal yourself. So I apologise about my "condescending and arrogant apology". I hereby retract my apology. (I leave it to you to determine exactly which one I retract.) Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------