BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST,TTCM
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 04:36 PM

Yes, Justapicker, you're definately a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 01:54 AM

"...that evidence is is dismissed as minor..."

Precisely so

Perhaps it would not seem quite so minor if you were the one being accused by our volunteers of making abusive anonymous postings.

Or were having your posts censored or threads closed - for no good reason and without the correct so-called reporting system being followed.

What evidence would YOU require to demontstate that the present 'system' is a free-for-all and a cock-up?

What evidence can you provide to ensure us that we are safe from an increase in the current unnaccountable judgement and censorship of our postings to our forum by a select few? Or perhaps would you wish to join this judgemental few?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 04 - 08:35 PM

"...that evidence is is dismissed as minor..."

Precisely so.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 04 - 03:30 PM

Shambles:

No. We're done, as I mentioned earlier. I have withdrawn my agreement with you concerning Joe's statement that he might possibly harbor the opinion that you were an idiot. Your version of debate is time-consuming, counter-productive and personally painful because of the passive-aggressive style of it. So I am not engaging in that sort of reaction, and I seriously hope that others will not either, because it is not debate in the usual sense. IF you think I am idiot enough to stand still for that sort of underhanded abrasion, you have another think due, chum.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Jan 04 - 03:18 PM

I have commented on the actual issues, saying that I disagree with the significance you place on what I regard as relatively minor incidents, that I am satisfied with the way Joe and the others carry out the tasks which they have volunteered to do, and that my answer to the question posed in the modified thread heading above is "No".

The problem when you should dare to claim that Joe and Co are not operating as they claim they are doing is that you are asked to provide evidence - and when you do provide that evidence is is dismissed as minor.

Bill D in one of his posts claimed that allowing just one abusive post was one too many. The evidence I have provided is just what I have come across - I am sure there is much more but it is enough to demonstrate and support my claim.

The question is not really if our forum is over-policed but if it needs to be policed at all. Or how can you prevent our forum from becoming over-policed? I would suggest that uncritical praise and support - in the face of the evidence provided and minimising this evidence - is not the way this is done.

The signifigance of the evidence provided is that it IS evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Is the Mudcat overpoliced?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 04 - 12:20 PM

I have commented on the actual issues, saying that I disagree with the significance you place on what I regard as relatively minor incidents, that I am satisfied with the way Joe and the others carry out the tasks which they have volunteered to do, and that my answer to the question posed in the modified thread heading above is "No".

Commenting on "where" and "how" opinions are posted is as much a matter for other people as commenting on the opinions themselves. In certain circumstances we have the right to say "I wish you would shut up," ("where"), and also the right to comment on the manner of someone's discourse ("how").

That is a reasonable exercise of free speech, and it does not interfere with the reasonable exercise of right of free speech by the other person.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Jan 04 - 08:46 AM

Focusing might be better achieved, Riger, if you did this within a thread (or a series of threads) actually dedicated to the discussion of this issue, rather than broadcsting your comments, fairly randomly, in threads about other stuff.

And maybe you could supplement that by sticking a link to the censorshop discussion thread in a post in those other threads, when that seemed relevant.

It may also be helped if you could address it rather than commenting on how and where I post my views - which is rather a matter for me. You also know full well that these are not posted randomly.

For Kevin - I have tried to take your advice - perhaps you have forgotten? There are links to this thread as this thread was up and running and seemed to be better than starting yet another one - which others would have considered to be the wrong thing. You have already posted here to suggest a new title for this thread so I feel that I have done all that you have asked. Perhaps you could now just post to address the issue rather than 'hijacking' this one for you own agenda? *smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 03:51 PM

"I am trying hard to focus on the important issue of censorship on our forum"

Focusing might be better achieved, Riger, if you did this within a thread (or a series of threads) actually dedicated to the discussion of this issue, rather than broadcsting your comments, fairly randomly, in threads about other stuff.

And maybe you could supplement that by sticking a link to the censorshop discussion thread in a post in those other threads, when that seemed relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 08:09 AM

"It is what is being said that is important - not who may be saying it." --The Shambles, 23 Jan 04 - 10:13 AM

Hear hear, The Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 06:16 AM

For the sake of completeness.

Shambles, can you help?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 10:13 AM

I am trying hard to focus on the important issue of censorship on our forum and to avoid reacting to the reaction. For it matters little if the questions that I am asking are coming from and eight-armed Woggle from the planet Plod intent on invading the Earth and high on the best 'Old Toby'. It is what is being said that is important - not who may be saying it. If it is being said in a moderate manner - I feel that this should be respected and responses should also be made in this manner.

Sorry to muddy the waters with facts, but I've just posted to Guest Postings It does not appear to be closed at all.

Nigel - I hope you are not now trying to get us to believe that the Guest Postings thread was never closed - for I do beleive it was you who earlier posted to inform me that it had been re-opened?

I, and a number of other people requested that the thread was closed. Shambles, you took over the thread in what seemed as a personal vendetta (and before you criticise my spelling I know already know its bad) The original matter in the thread has been delt with and everyone, apart from yourself of course, is happy with it. Life is too short for all your complaining, you really need to get out more, play more music and relax.

In that thread I also expressed a wish that the thread NOT be closed as there was no good reason to do so. As has been pointed out - this is not a democracy - we do not have a vote - so every voice is worth no more or no less than everyone else's. As for the convention of respecting the original poster's intention - I feel that many people were doing just that - for as I have pointed out before and you fail to mention here - the original posting also asked for suggestions on how things could be improved. Closing the thread would deny any future posters the chance to make these suggestions.

You may well now be happy that Joe having wrongly accused you of posting abusive anonymous messages - will not do this again to you. I am just trying to do what I can - to ensure that such things do not happen again to anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 07:46 AM

Perhaps a hobby.....a torrid affair... a new pet...

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Catherine Jayne
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 06:21 AM

I, and a number of other people requested that the thread was closed. Shambles, you took over the thread in what seemed as a personal vendetta (and before you criticise my spelling I know already know its bad) The original matter in the thread has been delt with and everyone, apart from yourself of course, is happy with it. Life is too short for all your complaining, you really need to get out more, play more music and relax.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 06:18 AM

Sorry to muddy the waters with facts, but I've just posted to Guest Postings It does not appear to be closed at all.

Possibly Roger misread the post above mine in that thread

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 06:04 AM

Need I say more?
-Joe Offer-

Yes please Joe - this will do for a start.

Why was the Guest Posting thread closed? Who did it and why did they not use the so-called correct procedure when exactly this same mistake was made earlier over The Memorial thread?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 02:53 AM

shambles-why donyt yoo just shut uip?
you moan too much,
ok if your thresd gets detekewd, son wht!
you are lucky, you got warm house, food to eat, and i guess yoiu got a decent job, [you can afford internet etc],
plenty peoplr dont have this=
did you reelise that 1/3rd of the worlds population don't know where theree next meal is comoing from?
and loads of proplke in jail for there political/religous beliefs?
and you bloody moaning because joe deleted one of yoyr threads!
just grow up, and put it in perspecitive!
its just a website!
if your thread gets deleted it DOESENT MATTER!

you wont anser me, but never mind, just think anout it!

you soundiong like a little kid, "its not fair, joe is picking on me etc"!

I dont like little kids, my cousin got one, sjhe says "john , look after my little daughter, while i go bingo"

I said "bloody no chance, your kid, you look after it, litle kids moan too much, "i want ice cream, i want postman pat video, i want sweets etc etc"

"i want, never gets, piss off litle kid"

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 02:49 AM

Evidence that Joe & Jeff & Co. are doing a good job:

1. Max hasn't fired us
2. Shambles is still complaining about us
3. Most other people seem to have few complaints
4. Max hasn't fired us

Need I say more?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 02:28 AM

The Memorial thread link you referred us to, Shambles, does not serve your agenda well. It very clearly shows a thinking Joe Offer trying to establish and maintain coherent ground rules with the help of others' input; it does not come close to showing an arbitrary authoritarian.

That is a matter of opinion - I posted it to demonstrate a fact that the same mistakes are just repeated.

Why was the Guest Posting thread closed? Who did it and why did they not use the so-called correct procedure when exactly this same mistake was made earlier over The Memorial thread?

The claim Joe and Co are doing a good job is well-supported.
That Joe and Co intend to a good job is also accepted by me.
These are opinions - largely based on the fact that they are fine well-intentioned folk - which I also accept.

The real questions are:

What exactly is that job?
How can the effectiveness be evaluated?
How can you decide when censorship goes over the line - when then is no line?
Is it really helpful to anyone that those who would volunteer to censor our contributions to our forum - are shown to be receiving uncritical support - based on the belief that they are doing a good (if undefined) job - rather than any evidence of a focused and organised system.

The old chestnut about name-calling abusive postings is a nonsense when the volunteers themselves are PROVED to indulge in the same thing and create the example of a double standard and actually encourage this name-calling agaist selected targets - for example - Forums Discussion Groups If that is the purpose of this policing - can it be proved to have succeeded?

My 'agenda' supported by the evidence that I will continue to supply and much evidence that I will not be aware of and that others may be - is that this system is not working as it is claimed and defended by many and that it is a cock-up - badly in need of an objective review - not that evil folk are conspiring together.

If folk wish to supply evidence that proves that the current system of censorship - on the grounds of an individual volunteer's personal taste - is successful in causing anything other than yet nore division, bad feeling and threats - then please produce this evidence in support of your opinion that Joe and Co ARE in fact doing a good job.

This system was set-up in response to some ill-defined outside threat to - take over The Mudcat. It responds to even the mildest criticsm as if this were this attempt. It is just time to stop and examine what exactly the function of the volunteers should be and how this can be tightened - up to protect contributors from them.

Is this system so perfect that it cannot be improved? Even its most vocal supporters accept that mistakes are being made - but seem to accept these - as long as they affect someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 12:49 AM

hello, mick-i think mr shambles is a mad person, and he probably tok too many drugs in the 60's, and they all messed his head up,
i know somebody like that, he's called Mad Pete, he did loads of drugs in the sixties, and he thinks every body is looking at him, and talking about him, and picking on him etc, but they arent, hes just mad.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 12:44 AM

Jeri, I did a search on all his posts. He has been pulling this same old shit since 1999. And if you check the Euro Folk.net, he does the same thing there, except that Dick Gaughan is his target. As I said, we simply feed his psychosis when we debate with him.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Cluin
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 11:37 PM

That'll do, donkey.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 10:25 PM

SHambels-wHy donty you just shut up, and stop picking on JOe, and go and play some music?
[this is music site, not moaning site.john

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 10:09 PM

It goes back a good deal futhah than thet, Jeri. When I first come onboard the 'Cat it was going on then.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 10:05 PM

Anybody who wants to be a Witchfinder should be taking notes on Roger's tactics, anyway. Other skills include namecalling and not minding his own business. I think he's projecting. Joe doesn't have the monomania, the need to 'get' somebody and the lack of respect for others (including believing they're sheep who need examples to follow) that are required to be a decent Witchfinder General. He really sucks at... shall we call it 'embellishing the truth'? (Sorry, Joe.) Roger's out to get Joe, plain and simple.

Would anyone like to guess how long Roger and Co have kept this going round in circles? The first thread I remember was the "Minding Your Own Business" one in the Help forum. It was started on 7 March 2003. There may have been something earlier - I'm not sure. I have no clue how y'all can enjoy the same argument for that long. It boggles the mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 09:10 PM

Roger:
The quote of Joe's that you use to justify your claims appears to be a "One off" and certainly fails to say what you seem to believe it says.

Shambles can say whatever he likes about me, and it's very unlikely that his messages will be deleted - despite all his complaints about deletions, the only Shambles messages that get deleted are the duplicate ones he posts in two or three locations. I may not like what he has to say and I may be convinced that he's an idiot and a troll - but at least he has the courage to use his own identity when he speaks, and I respect that.

So Joe has said (a) "I may be convinced that he's an idiot and a troll". Had Joe said (b)"I am convinced Shambles is an idiot" that would have been a little more serious. Had he said (c) "Shambles is an idiot" that would have been stronger still.
However, what he has said is that he "may be convinced". Are you really trying to do all that you can to convince him?

Statement (a)suggests an openness to persuasion
Statement (b)states a personal opinion
Statement (c)could be considered offensive

Nigel (not a protector of the 'Witchfinder' as I don't believe he needs it)

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 02:18 PM

I think Kevin expressed an opinion in this thread that he also considered this to be wrong.

Sure I said I thought it was a mistake.I also said that it wasn't a mistake tat was too important.

Kevin - from the evidence of the post I referred to - I formed the opinion that you were not in agreement to the editing action taken on the personal judgement of the individual involved - that certain posts were political - I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression and did not notice your qualification.

Subject: RE: Memorial Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14-Nov-03 - 12:38 PM

The post Gareth objected to there was a response to an earlier thread which politicised the thread just as much, but in a different direction.

I sympathise with the idea of having a memorial thread that avoids avoids the politics but its a difficuot line tom thread. Any post that goes beyond paying respect, and starts expressing solidarity with the cause they were fighting for is making a political statement. Sometimes it's easier to recognise the political statements we disagree with than the ones we agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 01:46 PM

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 01:04 PM

Folks, you may all do as you choose. It is my opinion that responding to Roger only feeds what he is after here. If you want to act in an "enabling" fashion, then by all means go on and continue the dialogue on the same old load of shite. If you are tired of this, then simply quit responding.

Roger, please note that no one has shut down your thread, even though it is possible to do so. Please...........ramble on as long as you feel like doing so. I hope it is to an empty room.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 01:02 PM

I think Kevin expressed an opinion in this thread that he also considered this to be wrong Sure I said I thought it was a mistake.I also said that it wasn't a mistake tat was too important.

A sense of proportion in these things is needed. And, as your use of an attempted analogy about Rodney King getting beaten to a pulp perhaps implies, that is what seems to be lacking.
......

Here are some musical hamsters from Essex.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:59 PM

That is a matter of opinion - I posted it to demonstrate a fact that the same mistakes are just repeated.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:59 PM

Shambles...you are totally confusing and misusing the concepts of 'proof' and 'evidence'. Videos of R. King proves he was hit...it does not prove what was said or what his or the officers state of mind was..etc...and thus it will always be open to interpretation whether it was 'excessive' use of force....as will 'exactly' what happened in JFK's assassination, no matter how many ballistics tests are conducted or how many feet of film analyzed.

As far as Mudcat goes, you seem to be claiming that the very fact that some posts have been deleted 'proves' that the act of deletion is obviously indefensible! You cannot seem to even comprehend that anyone could disagree: " If we can ALL finally accept that there is a problem..."...... we do NOT all 'accept' OR agree..in fact, most of the comments clearly DISagree with you, above & beyond the fact that Max is ok with *his* system running as it is.

You 'seem' to have switched from blanket condemnation of editing and/or deleting posts to claiming that the BS section should be exempt. Nowhere was it ever decided that the BS area was fair game for any sort of spam, stalking, hate messages, personal insults and inhoherent babbling! The BS section was merely to allow 'reasonable' off topic discussion to be avoided by those who wanted the basic music & technical discussions to be less cluttered. The BS area allows a LOT of latitude in plain silliness, political discussions, religious debate and even THIS interminable meta-debate of the rules of debate!

You need to get used to the idea--you have proved nothing about whether some 'censorship' here is right or wrong...IT IS A MATTER OF OPINION!!..just like discussions of God or whether G. Bush and T. Blair are assholes or not, or whether aliens exist (those are 'obvious' to some!)...

Not only is it not a matter of a vote, since Max gets the only real vote, but if it WERE a matter of a vote, you are out-voted! Even J0hn from Hull didn't want his deleted posts to be defended!

The only vote you get is the same one you get with the TV 'off' button. Please...talk about other things or push that button!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:55 PM

The Memorial thread link you referred us to, Shambles, does not serve your agenda well. It very clearly shows a thinking Joe Offer trying to establish and maintain coherent ground rules with the help of others' input; it does not come close to showing an arbitrary authoritarian.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:40 PM

Sorry Mooman - I will just refer you to the evidence.

The Memorial Thread

The above is an example of a volunteer taking editing action without the correct reporting procedure. According to Joe – they are/were supposed to contact him first. Without the poster's knowledge or permission some selected (non abusive) posts were taken from this thread on the main forum where the thread was posted and place in a new thread. This was done only one the personal value judgement of the volunteer concern and Joe later stated – that he did not agree with the action – but it was too late to change. I think Kevin expressed an opinion in this thread that he also considered this to be wrong?

Now mistakes happen but the lessons were not learned and a short while later persons unknown closed the following thread – for reasons unknown Guest Postings. I received a PM from Joe again stating that he did not agree with the action and that there had again been confusion and yet another break-down of the reporting procedure. This time the thread was re-opened.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:28 PM

You guys are really VERY dull. I'll go elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: mooman
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:13 PM

Sorry...but you've lost me now Shambles with the analogy you give!

All the best

moo

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:03 PM

I think Joe and the other Clones do a sterling job and, as far as I can see, try to confine deletions to nasty personal attacks rather than courteous (and quite normal) differences of opinion (guests included).

It's not that I don't understand what you are saying, Roger, it's that I don't agree with you, so there's no need to feel "forced to labour".

If the video evidence of Rodney King is shown on TV being kicked and punched - is that not evidence that (at least some) LA's finest are not doing a good job or setting a good example? Remember also that they have clear and understood rules to work to and to protect us.

Is it really sensible - having seen it - to deny that evidence - to go on to still express a personal opinion that that are doing a good job? What value can that opinion hold - if it is held despite the evidence? Is it not a bit unwise to start to qualify the extent of the poor man's abuse by saying things like 'it was not too bad', 'they were not kicking him too hard' or 'they did not actually kill him' - or even that he was enjoying it??????????????

This is what I mean by being forced to labour things. Not opinions for you to agree with or not - but solid rock-bottom evidence that demonstrate what folk defend - is not in fact what is happening............

If someone has a bruise - it is not going to go away just because you express an opinion that it is not there. You may have an opinion that the bruise was not hurting as much as the person said it did - but they are to one feeling the pain and should know. Would it not be more sensible to make some real effort to try and ensure that this person did not receive any more bruises?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST,weerover
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 09:51 AM

Having skimmed through most of the foregoing messages, I can't help but think that some people have got way too much time on their hands.

wr

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: mooman
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 09:23 AM

Dear Justapicka,

Knowing Max's policy and views on this matter I must respectfully disagree with your "puppermaster" post. Max owns this site and is probably one of the most tolerant people on it. For the record, I think Joe and the other Clones do a sterling job and, as far as I can see, try to confine deletions to nasty personal attacks rather than courteous (and quite normal) differences of opinion (guests included).

Just my humble opinion of course.

Peace

moo (not a "clone" or so-called "insider")

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 02:12 AM

If you get some understanding, you seem to either laugh it off, or ignore it...

Some evidence of that would be welcome.

But is it is not rather pointless to qualify - yes well it did happen - it shouldn't or that it was not too serious or whatever - when you have been maintaining that such things are not so and asking to see the evidence? If we can ALL finally accept that there is a problem and not just to the individual who has their contributions deleted - we can try to ensure that it does not happen again.

I have not stated that folk are conspiring together to create a fascist regime. However I do think that I have provided much evidence to prove that it is a cock-up and that there is no real common thought about what this censorship action is supposed to acheive or when how and who does this or indeed where. For example should the BS not be free from this intervention?

All this has allowed a double standard to creep in and where it is accepted by many that mistakes are being made - my main point is that these mistakes are simply being allowed to be repeated and the lessons are not being learned from them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:13 AM

justapicker...your 3rd incarnation here is beginning to resemble your 1st..

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 09:29 PM

For what it's worth...

I think Joe Offer is doing a great job, I'm astounded by the patience and care that McGrath and Amos are taking in their responses to Shambles... I enjoyed justa's dark vision... micca is a brilliant shining star...

But Ohmygoodness Shambles... what a load of self indulgent crap! If you get some understanding, you seem to either laugh it off, or ignore it... That horse is so dead I'm starting to think you are simply playing it... having mistaken it perhaps, for a well tuned drum...

IMHO, it's your "Golden Vanity"...

All the best, and could you simmer down a bit please? ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:48 PM

Actually, Roger, I think I am compelled to withdraw my confession. If I had known how inappropriate, misguided and insensitive your criticisms were going to be, I would probably have secretly ended up considering you an idiot, too! But, in general, I'd have been too polite to say so. You, on the other hand, seem top have no such compunction.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:45 PM

Joe and I got into it, in an very ugly way a few years ago, right here in front of gawd and everyone. We got over it. He is, after all, human like the rest of us. Suprise, surprise!

So when do I get my Joe Clone Policeperson's Badge and who wants to get interrogated first? In the Temple of the Golden Globes, of course; then it'll be off to the NYCFTTS! No doughnuts, though, the aliens ate them all!

kat

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:42 PM

Shambles, I can agree that Joe Offer might have bitten his tongure rather than go public with his opinion of you. And remember, it is ONLY his opinion an opinions are malleable; I have little doubt that he would be happy to change it if given reason. If it would make you feel better, why not PM Joe and ask for a public apology?

I too am just glad to have this forum- I don't require Max or Joe O or the joeclones to be super-human. Thank goodness that they behave better than some of us do when we get carried away!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:16 PM

It's not that I don't understand what you are saying, Roger, it's that I don't agree with you, so there's no need to feel "forced to labour".

I just feel glad the Mudcat is here, and I'm pretty happy with how it works, and grateful to the people who put time and effort into into helping it work. If from time to time they make the odd mistake, who doesn't?

The examples you give, Shambles, of what you are complaining about just don't add up, in my judgement, to very much that is worth complaining about. There's a difference between suggestions for change and improvement, and this kind of thing.

The insults you identify don't seem too serious. "Troll." "Idiot." I've had far worse from other posters. Agreed, that's a different matter from getting them in a semi-official capacity. But when we get under people's skin we can't be surprised if they scratch, and as scratches go, those seem, to me, pretty mild.

(And justa picker - you're a great musician, but...)

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 06:51 PM

4 Is a sensible and responsible example being set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?

Courtesy is always appropriate. So is plain speaking. (And if you think that those PMs from Joe are "abusive"...)

The nature of PMs of course are not for public display, I will continue to respect that convention.

The two examples posted were not of course PMs from Joe - they were posted publicly in the Guest Posting thread. The claim was not that they were abusive or the extent of that abuse - they were evidence of those who would volunteer to judge us setting the example of name-calling those whose views they did not agree with or understand.

Did Joe publicly write that he considered me to be an idiot and a troll?
Is this name-calling setting a sensible and responsible example and do you consider this then to be "courtesy"?

As you know I have been called a lot worse things and don't really care what names I am called. However, if the big no-no is claimed to be censoring abusive postings and the name-calling of fellow 'catters' - to prevent some posters from being offended - Is it not reasonble to expect those who volunteer to judge us to set better standards than they currently do? And for them to be judged by those same standards - if not even higher ones and certainly not to been seen to be setting double standards?

Should they not ensure that ALL members are not encouraged and are not encouraging others to indulge in this scapegoating - where certain individuals with certain views - appear to be considered as 'fair-game' and where the normal conventions do not appear to apply?

Kevin you well know the points I am being forced to labour - I would be grateful if you did not make me labour them yet again. Perhaps you and others can help in addressing them?

Somewhere between the extremes of the 'snow job' perfect fairyland of Amos and the 'puppetmaster' nightmare of Justapicker - lies the true situation. Good folk trying to do their best. It does not help them or us to praise them uncritically or to slag them off whatever they try do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 02:09 PM

You're just bloody unbelievable, ya know? I don't go to the trouble of trying to maintain a courteous discussion with you in order to have you insult me, you parboiled witherspoon!

*Smiles*

Amos - In your so-called courteous discussion with me, in the post you refer to - you did rather nicely say you don't consider me to be an idiot but you then go on to justify me fitting the description of a troll.

I have found you to be an intelligent man but your determination to make me labour points that are perfectly obvious - and at the same time blame me for extending and hijacking threads where you have made as many contributions as I - is rather testing the immpression I have gained of you.

I am not going to be provoked into of calling you names in return. One reason is that if I were to that - I fear that I would not be immune from charges of calling other 'catters' names and there would be many calls to close or edit this thread.

Your bluster is one way of getting out of the fact that you have finally accepted at least one of my major points. And that you may hope that this indignant reation will enable you to avoid answering my question about what you proposed to do - if anything - about Joe and Co's bad example of calling the poster's names. Except of course to follow it this bad example........

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:44 PM

Anyone with a conscience, true or not, is aware of the validity of SOME of these contentions. However, I think you go a tad over the top, JP. "Puppet master"? You have read more Machiavelli than is good for you. You know what they say about a little knowledge.

IMO

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Justa Picker
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:42 PM

Yes Amos. :-)
Just think back to the beginning of Python's "Meaning of Life", at the beginning of the film with all the fish saying 'mornin'n to each other.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:34 PM

JEeze, JP!! AN AQUARIUM??? You mean...we're all...just FISH??? Oh, my GAWD!! I'm a FISHHHHH???? I can't believe this!! Why didn't somebody TELL ME????


ROTFLMAO


A