Objections to Joe Offer

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 14 May 05 - 01:26 AM

This is just like soap operas.

I once (for a period of four or five months) watched The Young and the Senseless"--part of a school project. I then didn't see it for many years. I watched it again, and within two or three days was right up to speed again, just like I'd never left.

Deja vu all over again.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,restating the obvious
Date: 13 May 05 - 04:17 PM

making a comment about truths that are self evident is not name calling nor a personal attack.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 04:06 PM

Jeri

Some may say that your contribution was a just personal attack and name-calling of a fellow poster.

Some may even ask our volunteers to delete it.

Jeri do you think there any chance of you imposing editing action upon your own post - or of any other volunteer doing this?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jeri
Date: 13 May 05 - 03:48 PM

Perhaps Jeri if you do not wish to post and say anything to me - could you please set a better example and not post publicly to say things about me?

I probably could, but I will not. Shouldn't you be setting an example of not criticising another poster's contribution anyhow? LOL

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,john q. public
Date: 13 May 05 - 03:47 PM

not in this case.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 03:40 PM

Perhaps Jeri if you do not wish to post and say anything to me - could you please set a better example and not post publicly to say things about me?

It would be considered as offensive to do this in company and it is just as offensive to do this online.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 03:29 PM

Somrthing tells me that M.Mario is a 'volunteer'

MMario

I will not demand answers from you. I do not have that right. The following are your words - they are not Max's words.

Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content of this site at any time.

Everyone else is supposed to now follow it - why are you ignoring the words of the EDITORIAL POLICY - or do you think they not apply to you?

There is always a balance with our rights. If your words were pinned-up when Max started our forum and I first posted - you may have a point. But they were not - were they?

MMario - 'don't sweat the rules - for there are none' were not your words either.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 13 May 05 - 03:12 PM

again - shambles - you are not answering the question I asked.

do you or do you not understand Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content of this site at any time.

This is despite any stated or unstated editorial policy. it is a right conveyed by Max's ownership of the site.

I do not see how you could possibly not understand this. I do not ask that you agree with it. but it is indeed true and nothing anyone (even Max) says changes that fact.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jeri
Date: 13 May 05 - 03:08 PM

MMario, you ask Shambles if he understands.

Yes. Of course he<does. What he understands is that trolling works here because people care and they mostly don't pick up on the fact that<a troll doesn't need a motive other than<to keep prodding and provoking those caring people every once in a while.

Shambles will continue to argue (and create his own dialect in the process). People are still trying<- three years after he started -<to either reason with him or<at least get him to shut up. It's not going to happen, since his only motive appears to be to continue forever. With the assistance he's been getting from folks, he shouldn't have<any problem doing<that.
<<<
Mudcat is what it is. It's<too<big<for any<one person, save<for those with control over the Almighty Code, to affect very much. Shambles<will complain, and nothing much will change. We may try to<get him<to stop complaining, and nothing much will change. We may become frustrated and angry at people or what they do, and nothing much will change... except we're frustrated and angry. This is<fine for those - and the numbers seem to be increasing - who enjoy being frustrated and angry. If you enjoy perpetual pointless argument, keep on goin'.
<<<
MMario, Shambles doesn't<want a resolution. He doesn't want<to understand or even honestly express what he personally DOES want because a clear goal can<be either met<or dismissed and his day in<the spotlight will<be over.
<<<
Would everyone involved in arguing with Shambles do me a favor? Ask yourself what you hope to accomplish in threads like<this, and why your method will be effective. If your goal<is anything other than 'more of the same', you<may want to<do<a reality check.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 03:05 PM

MMario

Of course I understand the EDITORIAL POLICY - perhaps you do not as your words are not there - are they? I also understand that Max has the right to do as he wishes and no one is making any attempt to deny or take this right away from Max.

However I seen no evidence that Max's intention in opening this part of his private site as a public discussion forum - was to deny or take away from the public the right to express themselves in the manner of their choosing.

Even the new 'rules' introduced in the EDITORIAL POLICY should make this clear - even to you.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 13 May 05 - 02:24 PM

ROGER - DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.

yes or no.

I did not ask for a suggest editortial pilicy.

I did not ask whether or not you or I consider what editing is currently being done "routine" or not, correct or not, moral or not.

a simple question. do you understand the fact that Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 02:12 PM

MMario - is this better?

EDITORIAL POLICY. (suggested revision)

The Mudcat Cafe as a matter of routine - will edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum. We will not do this sparingly, but we will impose this on every contribution - even when there is no need to take any action to keep the peace, or to protect the interests of our community.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 May 05 - 01:57 PM

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 13 May 05 - 01:46 PM

That this may be a RIGHT for the management - does not alter the FACT that the management in their EDITORIAL POLICY have CLEARLY stated that it is a RIGHT - the management reserves - for the reasons stated in their EDITORIAL POLICY.

Please argue with what the management's EDITORIAL POLICY now states - or with what our volunteers want to tell you that it states - not with me.

Or "learn to live with it". *Smiles*

I have no idea what you are trying to argue here. Geeziz Man, you are over the edge! That is total jibberish Roger!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 13 May 05 - 01:53 PM

Roger - regardless of what is stated in the Editorial policy.

Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.

they would have that right even if Max specifically denied having it.

I am not argueing. I am not debating. I am stating a fact.

do you understand that Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.?

It's a yes or no question. And guess what - even if you don't understand the statement - it is still true. You don't have to learn to live with it. it's fact.

furthermore - if one of max's designess deletes or edits contrary to Max's wishes - he is ultimately answerable only to Max. Not you, not me, not anyone other then Max.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 01:46 PM

That this may be a RIGHT for the management - does not alter the FACT that the management in their EDITORIAL POLICY have CLEARLY stated that it is a RIGHT - the management reserves - for the reasons stated in their EDITORIAL POLICY.

Please argue with what the management's EDITORIAL POLICY now states - or with what our volunteers want to tell you that it states - not with me.

Or "learn to live with it". *Smiles*

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 13 May 05 - 01:45 PM

sorry - that was me above.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 13 May 05 - 01:34 PM

Shambles - what part of "Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time." don't you understand? Regardless of what you, I or ANYONE ELSE thinks, agrees to, or says.

Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.

fact.

this is despite anything anyone, including max, has ever said or posted.

Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.

this is outside any forum rules, site rules, agreements, opinions.

Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.

It is not a point that is debatable or that can currently be changed by anything less then an act of the US congress, or a change in the lagal status of the site.

Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 01:27 PM

EDITORIAL POLICY.

The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum. We will try our best to edit sparingly, but there are times when we may have to take some action to keep the peace, or to protect the interests of our community.

As I have stated - these are new 'rules' but where MMario does it say in these 'rules' - that our unknown volunteers feel qualified to impose their personal judgement upon the contributions of fellow posters - now as a matter of routine - where there are no issues of peace-keeping or protecting the interests of all our community?

I am sorry but the words 'reserving the right' and 'sparingly' do not mean the imposing of anonymous volunteer's personal jugement upon the invited contributions of fellow posters - as a matter now of routine.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 13 May 05 - 12:39 PM

Shambles - what part of "Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time." don't you understand? Regardless of what you, I or ANYONE ELSE thinks, agrees to, or says.

Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.

fact.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 12:32 PM

shambles? Your point is what? This is a privately owned site. Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time. If this is not agreeable - then don't post.

that is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is a fact of life. Live with it.

MMario

You may be prepared to accept that the new 'rules' were introduced (by our volunteers) some years after many of us had been posting? These new 'rules' now state that the 'management' 'reserve the right' to do these things.....That is the truth that you have to accept and live with.

For perhaps you will also accept that - the 'management' reserving this right - is NOT the same thing at all - as our unknown volunteers feeling qualified to impose their personal judgement upon the contributions of fellow posters - now as a matter of routine?

To be fair - many of our volunteers may be well-intentioned and may not wish to do this (just as many do not feel they need to keep their volunteership a secret). Perhaps if they do not agree with this routine censorship or do not like being tarred with the same brush - they can address this point with those volunteers who do feel themselves qualified to now impose their personal judgement upon the invited contributions of their fellow posters - as a matter of routine?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 May 05 - 12:25 PM

LOL.....What makes this entire thing so ridiculous are these threads of explanations and Joe's explanations on the threads as to WHY things happen as they do. I don't know of any toher sight that does anything even close to that. And at this point, it's what Joe, Jeff, and the Clones need to do. Just make the changes ... PERIOD. Someone wants an explanation they can put a note in HELP Forum or PM Joe. A thread like this starts, they close it. Just do the job and flush the explanation crap. It is what it is.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 13 May 05 - 11:04 AM

Alright, who pinched my 300???

MMario,
       Yes.Agreed. Iknow. I don't really give a hoot who censors what! To me mudcat is the following:-

1) A good way of finding out what is going on musically in my area.
b) A bit of a titter.

The flamenco sites that I use are much more heavily censored than mudcat, AND THEY DON'T ALLOW GUESTS TO POST!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 13 May 05 - 10:55 AM

300!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 13 May 05 - 10:55 AM

the "m's" aren't seperate. Whether or not I am a volunteer is not an issue. I am and have been deeply involved in this forum and this site for a long, long time. That's a matter or record. As I have been with other sites.

The fact is - any owner of a private site can delete or change content of the site at whim. So can their designees. There is no legal recourse. period. end of discussion. This is true of ANY private site.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 13 May 05 - 10:49 AM

Somrthing tells me that M.Mario is a 'volunteer'

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 13 May 05 - 10:27 AM

shambles? Your point is what? This is a privately owned site. Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time. If this is not agreeable - then don't post.

that is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is a fact of life. Live with it.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 13 May 05 - 10:20 AM

Who are these 'volunteers'then? Can I become one? I would love to edit you lot!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 13 May 05 - 09:37 AM

Rustic, thank you anyway.

Bruce

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 09:02 AM

I do NOT agree that Joe, Jeff or any of the helpers should be required to obtain 'permission' to do minor editing....*

And I am accused of 'skewed' logic.

Bill - If the originator's permission is not first obtained - then your eupemistic - "minor editing" - becomes censorship. Imposed upon the contributions of their fellow posters - by anonymous volunteers.

And this censorship imposed now as a matter of routine - on a trivial excuse to do so - and based only on our anonymous volunteer's personal judgement. This imposed personal judgment and the example currently being set by this - now threatens to shape our forum more than our freely given contributions do.

We are 'offically' told (by our volunteers) that these unknown number of anonymous volunteers are 'trusted' by Mudcatters. How can Mudcatters be said to trust anyone whose names are intentionally witheld from Mudcatters? Is there really any at all - trust in this?

Can this please now be reviewed and changed to something that is open, fair and has a clear objective - rather than something that seems to be designed simply for some posters to be able to impose their (flawed) personal judgement upon their fellow posters?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 12 May 05 - 06:38 PM

You know, I think I posted incorrectly. I thought we had a member that went by the handle GUEST. Seems like I read a post of his that he chose the name and signed up. I see the GUEST below isn't the member GUEST because there is not a pm after the name, so for all I know now, it could have been Dewey, re-posting an old post?!
okay-I'm stepping back out of this one now....
creating my own confusion, Rustic

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 12 May 05 - 02:31 PM

Latin at that.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 May 05 - 02:14 PM

"Moderation" is not in a troll's vocabulary, BillD. If it was we would not be seeing the mass of humongous postings regurgitating the same old excreta.

(it's OK, I'm using a dictionary today)

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 12 May 05 - 02:02 PM

"Bill - If you do not agree with the now routine imposition by anonymous volunteers upon the contributions of their fellow posters without obtaining their knowledge or permission – then please say so?"

mercy! How you DO twist words!

I certainly DO agree with the "official policy". I do NOT agree with your formulation of it. You have couched the question in a classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?" mode. You phrase the matter in loaded words, and then dare us to respond to your skewed phrases.

I do agree with the policy of allowing several people to help Joe & Jeff with various editorial chores, with the understanding that all final decisions are to be left to Joe & Jeff. I do NOT agree that Joe, Jeff or any of the helpers should be required to obtain 'permission' to do minor editing....*IF* there is a problem (there usually isn't)with editing (if the contributor objects) it can be discussed quietly by PMs and adjustments can be made, if necessary. THIS IS A MODERATED FORUM...that means moderation will occasionally be done, and by implication, the final decisions are under the control of the moderators.

...ok? Does that clarify my position? Good...I thought it would.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 12 May 05 - 12:54 PM

Rustic Rebel is a class act. Thanks for pointing that out, RR.

BM

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Azizi
Date: 12 May 05 - 08:11 AM

Rustic Rebel 11 May 05 - 10:37 PM said:

"Brucie and Ms. Azizi, I just wanted to point out that that was posted by member, GUEST. It was actually an older post from Dewey."

I believe that Rustic Rebel is referring to this post:

"Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 11 May 05 - 03:46 AM"

From reading that post I had assumed that "Formerly Dewey" had written it. But now-thanks to Rustic Rebel's post-I think that this is the cut and paste work of one of the nameless Guests.

It seems to me that cutting & pasting another person's posts should be a big 'no no' here at Mudcat. I suppose the Guest/Troll knew that and just wanted to stir up more trouble.

In the future I will be more careful about jumping to conclusions about what is attributed to people by anonymous Guests.

And, right now I will say "Ditto" to the words Brucie provided in his
11 May 05 - 11:10 PM post.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 12 May 05 - 08:03 AM

EG
Oh heck - Latin aint what it used tobe

I didn't know they were selling foxes at Asda, dont tell Flamenco Ted

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 May 05 - 07:36 AM

Sttaw,

so, you love proper ululations and you just love your mum to beat you with her tavern socks (the second sentence about the three pros singing outside Asda foxed me, I have to say).

Did I get that right?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 12 May 05 - 07:30 AM

Ego amo ullus proprius dedi iustus amo meus mam beatus suus tabernus socks. Three pro pretium of duos in Asda cant pello pepulli pulsum is , quod have vos seen pretium of rats illa dies facinarose.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 May 05 - 07:15 AM

Shambles,

if you really can't tell the difference (or do you just pretend to avoid answering?) I can tell it to you:

The last sentence, the one you have quoted, was mockery. The rest not.
I think you are seriously mistaken and in contradiction to yourself when you claim inaction necessarily avoids mistakes. It only avoids mistakes of commission and not those of omission. That is by the way one of the very fundamental mistakes in your whole argumentation against corrective actions here.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 May 05 - 05:51 AM

Apologies. I just tried to reason with a troll - silly me!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 May 05 - 05:38 AM

Correct. You keep leading the horse to the water, and the horse has repeatedly chosen not to drink from your trough. Will you now let the horse go? It's getting increasingly annoyed.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 May 05 - 05:09 AM

You are permited to lead a horse to water. The choice to drink is then up to the horse.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 May 05 - 05:07 AM

Perhaps we can leave our forum to decide on these mistakes

Perhaps shambles could follow his own advice.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 May 05 - 04:56 AM

The less you post, Shambles, the smaller is the chance that you post nonsense sentences. But I guess that's a small chance.
Wolfgang

Wolfgang was that just another of your nonsense posts to mock the style of what you judge to be my nonsence posts - or was it an attempt at a serious post - that just resulted in being nonsense? It is becoming difficult to tell.

The details of the mistakes referred to are all in the following thread Complaints vs mudslinging   Perhaps we can leave our forum to decide on these mistakes - who is posting nonsense and why anyone would wish to respond so often - to what they consider to be such nonsense?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 May 05 - 02:10 AM

"However, it quite disingenuous and plainly silly to NOW try and maintain that every change that our volunteers wish to make - should be imposed upon fellow posters without their knowledge or permission as a matter of routine."

Is that what I claimed?...if I had said something like that, YOU would have spent 2 paragraphs on the word 'every'.

Bill – that is the now 'official' (brown) policy that you defend so strongly and so often. As follows.

Your proposal has been noted, but it has been rejected because it imposes a cumbersome procedure and restriction upon our volunteers, a procedure which appears to be unnecessary. Note, however, that efforts ARE made to respect and preserve the thread originator's work, as space allows. Ordinarily, the original thread title remains intact in the original message in the thread. Also, thread titles are usually altered by augmentation of the original title by the addition of a clarifying word or phrase, preserving the original title if space allows. If it appears that a thread originator may have trouble locating the thread after a title change, the originator is usually contacted by e-mail or personal message with information on how to locate the thread.
Joe Offer

Bill - If you do not agree with the now routine imposition by anonymous volunteers upon the contributions of their fellow posters without obtaining their knowledge or permission – then please say so?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 11 May 05 - 11:10 PM

Well, then Guest can fuck off, too.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 11 May 05 - 10:37 PM

Brucie and Ms. Azizi, I just wanted to point out that that was posted by member, GUEST. It was actually an older post from Dewey.

And since I'm going, I'll say I agree with Shambles about the Damien headbutting thing, except it actually created four threads.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 11 May 05 - 08:37 PM

Man, that was good!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Azizi
Date: 11 May 05 - 07:32 PM

Cue in the song "Aquarius":

"When the moon is in the Seventh House
and Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius! Aquarius!

When the moon is in the Seventh House
and Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!

As our hearts go beating through the night
We dance unto the dawn of day
To be the bearers of the water
Our light will lead the way

We are the spirit of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
Angelic illumination
Rising fiery constellation
Travelling our starry courses
Guided by the cosmic forces
Oh, care for us; Aquarius"


Click HERE
for more songs from "Hair"

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 11 May 05 - 06:38 PM

I think there should be very strict and complete censorship on even numbered days that are evenly divisible by an odd number that is also a prime number, except when that day falls in a month containing no e in its name, or if the month has more than 30 days. The one exception would be a day that also falls on a full moon just after the owl hoots three times to herald the morn in Mali.