 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:05 AM Hmmm, I wonder how many more of the usual suspect 'tit for tat, must have the last word' Mudcat regulars we can attract to this thread? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:03 AM Geez, we are SO impressed with your logic, SRS. I, for one, don't know what we would have done in this thread without your stellar contribution. Why, I'm sure no one here ever had such an original thought as that one of yours! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:01 AM Geez, there is no respite from petty trolls who get their jollies by annoying the regulars at Mudcat. The big Kahuna of them all MG goes on vacation and launches a whole bunch of little clones to take his place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 06 - 11:31 PM The whole world waits breathlessly for your next mature response to the hoi polloi, Alba. We know how you love to look down on us--a really admirable trait. One I'm sure you will brag proudly to your grandchildren about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Alba Date: 17 Apr 06 - 11:27 PM xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 06 - 11:21 PM You sure care what your fellow Mudcatters think though don't you? Your desperation to conform and fit in is showing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 06 - 11:20 PM I have this image of childless barren crones huddled over a cauldron. Hysterical isn't it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Alba Date: 17 Apr 06 - 11:14 PM Why Thank you Guest. Your very gracious. LOL Do I know you..no. Do I give a shit what you think...eh no again You're a kind of glass half empty person aren't you, it shows. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Apr 06 - 11:05 PM LOL @ Ebbie.......Ya' know Ebbie, now that you bring that up....... Ever since this thread appeared I have wanted to say that I curb my dogs so why not troublemakers? Now we have that mental image of assorted Guests and 'Catters humped up and dropping a load by the curb. Now THAT is just too gross to imagine!!! But I will agree that my flat and saggy old ass with a Kendall Morse on it is pretty gross as well!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 06 - 11:01 PM Yes, and all of your rude, snide, belittling comments (Jeri, who sets an example by being a clone, Alba, beedubyaell, Ebbie, catspaw, kendall, et al) about another poster, no matter how much you hate, dislike, are annoyed by, etc. really creates a real laid back and friendly atmosphere here in Mudcat. I'm so impressed with how very cool all of you are with your ability to mock, insult, and belittle people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Alba Date: 17 Apr 06 - 10:52 PM 'Shamblecentric' ...I have said it before but hell it is worth saying again. Damn Jeri you're good. I will now apply this term when scrolling past certain posts:) Jude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Ebbie Date: 17 Apr 06 - 10:52 PM Does anyone else have the image of a very white rear end traveling very fast by leaps and bounds with Kendall Morse calligraphed on it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Jeri Date: 17 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM Yeah, Spaw - I came up with 'Shamblecentric'. Once a thread's infected, any useful discussion is out the window in favor of copy-pastes, accusations, claims of persecution, and demands for Joe to behave according to Shambles rules, and the thread becomes about him instead of the former topic. I hardly ever read what he writes, although I sometimes look at the threads because I have a bizarre sense of humor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Alba Date: 17 Apr 06 - 10:16 PM Groooooan..oh that should be deleted BDL...LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 17 Apr 06 - 10:13 PM When I went into town last week there was a road paving crew using one of those concrete extruder devices to lay down new curbs in preparation for repaving a road. The paving project had temporarilly blocked access to the street I needed to be on and I didn't know how to get there via an alternate route. So, having no other choice I rolled down my window, signaled a couple of the workers over and said to them, "I hate to bother you, but could you tell me how to get to the other end of that blocked street?" It was a definite case of needing to trouble the curbmakers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Alba Date: 17 Apr 06 - 09:40 PM Ain't Life grand Kendall :) Sometimes it is best not to question the good stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Apr 06 - 09:40 PM Yea verily Alba......With the Guest postings interlaced with the Gospel of Shambo this may be our best "SHAMBLECENTRIC" thread yet!!! Do you like "Shamblecentric" too? Was it Jeri? Sounds like one of hers. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: kendall Date: 17 Apr 06 - 09:39 PM I don't get it. $100 for a bit of old news? I'm surrounded by things I don't understand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Apr 06 - 09:36 PM Hey Kendall......That quote has been posted on various "Shamblecentric" threads (I love that line....Who came up with Shamblecentric?) about a dozen times so maybe you're insane to think it means anything to Shambo!!! 'Course Kendall, you're about insane anyway!!!(:<)) But I tell you this....I am never going to tell you to kiss my ass!!! Nosirree Bob!! I want you to SIGN MY ASS! Man that poster of yours is going for a C-Note ferchrissakes! Your signature on my ass would increase my personal value by leaps and bounds!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Alba Date: 17 Apr 06 - 09:35 PM You got it in one Spaw... This Thread in particular is a doozy...LMAO too. Whoever started it. It is worth it for the Guest posts alone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Apr 06 - 09:30 PM Oh mercy......I think you're bullying me!!! Shambles can say the same thing over and over but I can't huh? WAAAAAHHHH........I'm being bullied!!! LMAO.......What a great joint!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: kendall Date: 17 Apr 06 - 09:26 PM Definition of insanity: Performing the same task over and over the same way hoping for a different outcome |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 06 - 09:20 PM Spaw you also persist in saying the same thing over and over again, in response to Shambles. What is the difference? If you don't like his posts or don't see his point then do us all a favour and ignore it. Yes it does seem like bullying. A lot of us here understand exactly what shambles is saying and what his point is. You choose to ridicule him. Not very adult. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Apr 06 - 09:11 PM Well damn Sham......I understand free choice. As a matter of fact I am exercising it right now. I am trying to understand what the motive is from you for all of the same repetitive postings. You complain that others are trying to change your thinking and all the time you are trying to change theirs! I think it's you that doesn't understand. You have stated your case thousands of times I am sure and to what end? I'm not bullying you Roger....I am trying to figure out why you persist in saying the same thing over and over and over and over as if you expect it to change something through the sheer volume of your verbage. I too have a little sadness that you cannot see the forest here for all of the big and tall woody things with leaves and bark. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Date: 17 Apr 06 - 09:00 PM Yes, I do try to channel such discussions into one or two active threads, since multiple threads on the same subject can be overwhelming and confusing. I think it would seem very obvious to most posters - that the two now divided sections of our forum are now two very different animals? For this reason - perhaps the methods of attempting to impose order used on one section are not really suitable for the other and only serve to threaten them both? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Date: 17 Apr 06 - 08:42 PM Who would be so stupid as to stand in a crowd and yell beat me as you do unless you were just fooling around to get some personal laughs? Even if someone were to do this - you would not have to join in and beat them. It would appear that you have some problem in understanding a concept of having a free choice in such matters? The reason I continue to post on our forum is that there are still some people posting here who do not have a problem in understanding this concept and who would choose not to join in and beat someone just because they were labelled as an easy target to have some fun with. I and others are entitled to express our views. I am always prepared to change this view. But you really seem expect it to be changed by concerted efforts at bullying and seem dissapointed when it does not? You really seem to expect that all of the personal judgements posted at my expense would have the required effect. Even after all this time when I really must have been called every name and accused of every conceivable sin and ulterior motive - you still do not appear to understand. All I greet this with is a little sadness in what it reveals about those on our forum who persist in posting it, those who encourage it, those who do little or nothing to bring it to an end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Apr 06 - 03:06 PM Hmmm. This thread seems to be a discussion of censorship, although it may not be specifically a discussion of the difference between censorship and moderation. Still, it seems to be an appropriate home for your question, O Nameless Guest. If it does not satisfy you perfectly, learn to live with it. No, I don't feel threatened by such discussions, although they do seem tedious, since it's something that has been discussed over and over again. I've learned to avoid the temptation to be drawn into such discussions if they don't cover new ground. But you can go ahead and discuss it without me. Yes, I do try to channel such discussions into one or two active threads, since multiple threads on the same subject can be overwhelming and confusing. Besides that, certain people post the very same thing to a number of threads, so they're sure their post is noticed. Feel free to discuss the matter in this thread. You won't be deleted, but you may see your thread closed or redirected to an ongoing discussion or moved if there are already threads going on that cover a related subject. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Date: 17 Apr 06 - 02:58 PM There are all levels of bully. But when bullying becomes endemic in an institution like a school for example - the main reason people join in the bullying is self-preservation - to prevent themselves from being a victim of it. Some of these become the most enthusiastic of bullies in this attempt, as they see 'sticking the boot in' not only as a way to avoid being bullied but the only way of obtaining status in such an unfair system. They then have a vested interest in preserving the status quo - no matter how unfair it becomes. In this bleak but no means uncommon senario there are really only two options - be bullied or try to become one. The established bully could pretend that the victim is enjoying their role as much the bully does - but perhaps the real test of this is if they were willing to trade places? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 06 - 02:48 PM No wonder Jeri yelled at you publicly for being part of the problem rather than the solution. Discuss. BTW, can you please direct me to which thread is actually a discussion on the difference between censoring and moderating? Answer: No, you can't. Because there isn't one. But you seem VERY threatened by and afraid of these conversations. Delete? Probably. |
|
Subject: BS: Moderating vs censoring From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 06 - 02:30 PM Let's see if this makes it past the clones, who are so censor happy right now they have even taken to arguing about publicly in the threads. Moderating vs censoring. Do YOU know the difference? I know that no two Mudcatters will agree on the definitions, so I propose we go to the trust ole m-w.com: moderate (the verb): 1 : to lessen the intensity or extremeness of [the sun moderated the chill] 2 : to preside over or act as chairman of intransitive senses 1 : to act as a moderator 2 : to become less violent, severe, or intense censor (the transitive verb): Main Entry: 2censor Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/ : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable Discuss.
Discuss. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Apr 06 - 02:24 PM Oh come now! It isn't all that bad or even bad at all. In fact it must be welcoming! Roger says so or he wouldn't be here. When he left back in '99 he said: "I intend to look in from time to time and will hopefully, return if or when I feel that welcome is again there for all." .........so things are obviously okay. Actually, I really do think he must like it here or otherwise he would leave again, especially if he felt truly threatened or bullied. Plus he seems to be shoving his opinions/judgements around with the rest of us so I think it must be all in fun for him. What other answer can there be when you complain about the things you yourself are doing as Roger does? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 06 - 02:21 PM No, it's not the end of the discussion just because you say it is. I have been reading Shambles for as many years as anyone. I happen to think he is right about being targeted by the Mudcat Royals, and that they have turned the forum against him. Your post inferred that Roger routinely states that no one should be allowed to criticize him. I have never seen him make such a statement, but you can correct me if I'm wrong about that by providing a direct link to post by him showing such. Nowhere have I seen Roger advocate censorship. Also, I would like to add that I do not view censorship and moderation as one and the same thing, as some of you flabby minded folks do. I also don't believe that someone expressing an opinion critical of another's is a call for censorship, as many people here (like you Giok) so often claim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Apr 06 - 02:13 PM If you can bear it Guest perhaps you should firm up you mental muscles and read through Roger's responses to any comment on his posts positive or otherwise. Don't just judge it by this post, as it is now a long way down the line as far as Roger's crusade is concerned. It is him that is denying people the right to comment on his posts unless they play according to his rules. End of discussion! G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 06 - 02:03 PM Let's review, shall we? Here is what you said: Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie Date: 17 Apr 06 - 01:14 PM You are the one who wants to destroy free speech, you want to be able to post what you want, when you want, and you want to deny us the right to reply. A reply to any of your posts that disagrees with you is automatically categorised by you as personal criticism. You want to have your cake and eat it Roger, and the world doesn't work like that! Giok Nowhere that I have read, has Roger EVER said that someone who disagrees with him shouldn't be allowed to say. So why do you make that claim? Roger has the right to comment on what other people say about him, especially when it is as negative as it is here. Pointing out that people are being negative towards him, or criticizing him, isn't the same thing as saying "You can't say/do that". But delusional people like you always conflate these sorts of things all out of proportion to what was actually said. Which is why I believe you to have such a weak, flabby mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Apr 06 - 01:52 PM Don't be silly Guest read my post correctly, free speech is the right to speak out without fear of retribution or censure, Roger does not want us to have that right when it comes to responding to his posts. Please, if you want to have a dig at someone get your facts right! G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 06 - 01:19 PM Uh Giok, I think your idea of what constitutes 'free speech' is seriously off the mark. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Date: 17 Apr 06 - 01:16 PM Martin Gibson to visit Euope The following and incredible admission of failure - is from the above thread. This is the saddest moment of my time on the Mudcat. You have turned into a lynch mob. The sorry excuse for a person who calls himself Martin, and those like him, have won. Big Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Apr 06 - 01:14 PM You are the one who wants to destroy free speech, you want to be able to post what you want, when you want, and you want to deny us the right to reply. A reply to any of your posts that disagrees with you is automatically categorised by you as personal criticism. You want to have your cake and eat it Roger, and the world doesn't work like that! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 06 - 01:13 PM In defense of Frank, he doesn't usually allow himself to get sucked into the sewer pipe the problem posters live in here. Also, Frank is one of the few high status folk musicians who is still willing to come here and contribute. He is always polite, and I've never seen him criticize the forum moderators for anything, which means he is as safe as any poster can be here. As a high status musician (compared to the rest of us rank amateurs), a polite and mature poster, and a man who doesn't bite the hand that feeds him, his perception that the place is democratic is easy to understand. It is the people who have been censored because we DO bite the hands that feed the forum, who know just how democratic the place isn't and how far the abuse of power here has gone. If you've never had your IP blocked for criticizing Max, Joe Offer or Big Mick (they are the only three who have seriously thin skins among the clones--though catspaw and katlaughing aren't far behind them), or had your posts and threads removed (not just closed or commented upon, but removed without a trace), then of course you think the moderation of Mudcat is democratic, fair, and even handed. It also means you aren't paying atttention to what is really going on around here. Reminds me of the people who say "What are you so worried about civil rights for? If you aren't a terrorist, there is no need to worry." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Date: 17 Apr 06 - 01:02 PM Free speech is an American birthright. The internet is one of the last areas where free speech is encouraged. I applaud Mudcat for its democracy. Frank I totally agree with the first two. But it is now and forever being pointed out to us that the Mudcat is not a democracy. This very often by the same posters who judge that they have some right to impose their judgement on the posts of their fellow invited guests - but who judge that other posters do not have any right to post - just a privilige. Do you need to be censored |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Date: 17 Apr 06 - 12:45 PM Subject: RE: BS: Responses to bullying From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 24 Feb 06 - 12:28 PM No, it does seem like recent messages in that thread are bullying Roger, and that probably isn't right. So there you have it - the messages referred to seem like bullying and that probably isn't right........... It remains my view that every poster on this site should feel safe to post what they wish and have their words reamin as posted, without their worth being judged or inhibited in any way by the deliberate actions of ANY of their fellow posters. And that it is not possible to impose this. For the responsiblity for what is posted and responded to still remains with every individual poster who ONLY has any control over what they choose to post and no control over what others may choose to. That is the spirit of tolerance in which I first posted on our forum. It was the example generally set and generally followed. In the absence of any public statement to the contrary by Max - I will try to continue to post on this basis. If any poster does not like or accept this basis - they are of course free to set up their own site with a different basis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Apr 06 - 12:44 PM BNP threads always end up causing trouble on the Mudcat, and I for one think they should be ignored, even more so when they are introduced by un-named Guests I'm afraid. They don't deserve any publicity in my opinion, and they are only on the news just now as a means of taking peoples attention away from other things this government is up to. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 06 - 12:34 PM have threads on BNP got banned? I posted two yesterday or tried anyway and they were removed. has joe made a forthright decision at last and ousted the troublemakers? i posted them with all the publicity they are getting at mo. and linked to searchlight for the truth exposing of the bnp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: Stringsinger Date: 17 Apr 06 - 12:31 PM Free speech is an American birthright. The internet is one of the last areas where free speech is encouraged. I applaud Mudcat for its democracy. I've been, as many others have on Mudcat, the object of vituperation and ridicule but this is the price I'm willing to pay as an American. I keep coming back to Mudcat for information and honesty. We have a right to our opinions and if they step occasionally on our toes, then we can yell "ouch" back. I'm grateful there is this space to do that. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Apr 06 - 12:27 PM Sham, I ain't assuuming a thing. I'm just eliminating the other possibilities and I'm left with only one-----You must be having a good time. What other reason can there be? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Date: 17 Apr 06 - 12:15 PM The following thread was subject to imposed closure so you will not be able to contribute to it - but you can still read it. Responses to bullying |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 06 - 11:51 AM Another bizarre aspect of the place. There is purportedly the rule of "no personal attacks" yet the moderators are notorious for personally attacking people they don't like. My alcoholic father had a saying about his own hypocrisy, which he would scream thunderously at us in all his fury: "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO!!!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: The Shambles Date: 17 Apr 06 - 11:41 AM It is not a strange concept to assume that if you get fun out of calling someone names, encouraging others to follow this example, speculating publicly on their mental health and every other aspect of matters that are none of your business - that the victim of all this must also be enjoying it as much as you are. Were I to respond in kind - it could be possible to make this assumption of a kind of participatory sport - but as I do not - it remains a puzzling concept. Perhaps all bullies, rapists, child abusers etc make similar assumptions about their victims enjoyment of the treatment they receive? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Apr 06 - 10:47 AM Am I having fun at your expense Sham? I think not.....or at least that would be all I can figure. I mean if you are not a mental case, and you claim that any suggestion of that is a personal attack, then you MUST be having a good time. Who would be so stupid as to stand in a crowd and yell beat me as you do unless you were just fooling around to get some personal laughs? Surely the only other reason would be masochistic and you say no to mental illness. Maybe you're a martyr but I don't see that as it is a bit mentally unbalanced when you consider the inanity of the subject matter here. It MUST be that you are having a good time and enjoying yourself! Go for it!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do we need to curb the troublemakers? From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 06 - 10:41 AM That's right, Shambles. Nothing will ever change here unless and until the moderators go, and new moderators are trained to do what moderators are supposed to do--which is moderate with a fair and even hand--take over. But that won't ever happen because the site owner is himself a bad boy who worships the bad behavior--the having fun at others' expense by catspaw, the bullying by Big Mick, the sniping and back stabbing by Jeri and katlaughing, the power tripping by Joe Offer. Those are the people who set the bar here. Which is why the bar is so low that the Martin Gibsons and brucies have no trouble clearing it regularly. |