[yawn] 199 You're right, Shambles. You do get special treatment. We put up with you, and we shouldn't have to. With the way you've Spammed this forum with the same old thing (oftentimes multiple copies of the exact same thing) for six years, the fair and equitable thing would be to bar you from Mudcat for life - but we don't have the ability to do that to you just yet. So, we restrict your complaints to one active thread at a time, and allow you to say almost anything you like as long as you keep it in that one thread. If you want to post complaints in another thread, you have to stop posting in this thread and wait until tomorrow - and if you do, you can expect that this thread will be closed. Most people post what they have to say just once, and then go on and say something else. Why can't you do that?
At first glance the above may seem some justification for these imposed actions. But a closer look at the accusation will show that such a response is simply not proportionate and would strongly suggest that some other factor is at work.
You're right, Shambles. You do get special treatment. We put up with you, and we shouldn't have to.
Should our forum have to put up with the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and what he will allow?
The first question must who is the 'we' referred to? When used by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team - this divisive use of the words 'we' or 'us' never makes clear who it refers to but the only thing our forum can be sure of - is that it no longer refers to all of the posters to our forum.
Perhap it means the same noisy few posters who complain to him about what other posters choose to post in order to get editing action imposed on these contributions? For these are not seen to be dismissed by him as 'complaints' but are referred to as 'requests' and are often implemented at speed.
Unlike the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team , many posters do not judge my posts to be 'obnoxious' and appear to be perfectly happy to put up with me. And even those who do not - unlike the current chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - would probably accept that - as they accept that other posters 'should' put up with seeing their posts - they in turn 'should' have to put up with seeing the reasonably expressed posts of others.
With the way you've Spammed this forum with the same old thing (oftentimes multiple copies of the exact same thing) for six years, the fair and equitable thing would be to bar you from Mudcat for life - but we don't have the ability to do that to you just yet.
No evidence is provided to support this accusation. Unlike the Current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who has intentionally posted spam posts on our forum - I have not posted any spam to our forum - just my honest views.
And even if such an exagerated accusation had any truth in it - would the 'fair and equitable thing' really be to bar me 'from the Mudcat for life' for such a 'crime'?
Seeing a post with views you may not have agreed being posted subsequently in different threads - may be slightly irritating to some and not make anyone who had, any more inclined to agree with it - but I would suggest that a proportionate response for such posting 'crimes' would not be to bar the poster from the Mudcat for life.
And had not so many threads been routinely closed and deleted by our 'moderators' - there would not have even been a need for them to be posted or pasted again. For this is tool to be used on our forum - it is not a 'crime' and perhaps should not be inhibited - just because our 'moderators' may not like to see certain views posted?
Especially when certain posters and 'moderators are seen to be free from any censure and are now seen to be encouraged by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to follow their example in posting only abusive personal attacks and name-calling and the targeting of certain posters?
So, we restrict your complaints to one active thread at a time, and allow you to say almost anything you like as long as you keep it in that one thread. If you want to post complaints in another thread, you have to stop posting in this thread and wait until tomorrow - and if you do, you can expect that this thread will be closed.
Yes - out of all the posters on our forum - you have been seen to impose these special restrictions on my posting.
And from the evidence in this thread alone - still this punishment is plainly seen by our forum to be not punishment enough for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team..........
Most people post what they have to say just once, and then go on and say something else. Why can't you do that?
Mainly because our forum is constantly being given assurances by our 'moderators' that are not honoured.
So until all editing actions are recorded to enable our forum to know for the first time - the true nature and current level of 'silent deletion' and all other imposed actions - I will continue to do my best to try and bring this to its attention.
Of course another way the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team could ensure that he does not see similar posts appearing - is to actually implement some of these suggestions - rather than getting his knickers twisted and spending his energy in attempts to prevent these from reappearing?
For just as it unlikely that a poster may like seeing a view posted again that they did not agree with the first time - it follows that if the poster considers it to be a good idea - they will judge it no less good, the more attempts are seen to be made to prevent other posters from seeing it.