BS: Opening threads - a debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 11:07 AM

For those who may not have seen it - this (complete with the unwelcome editing judgement from one of our anonymous volunteer fellow posters, that was inserted into it) is from the first post in this thread.

Is this practice - and the current encouragement of the posting of only personal judgements of fellow posters by example – a really desirable example to now on our forum and if it is thought not to be – what (if anything) can be done by posters to our forum - to address it?

This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate. However, I suspect and fear that - (always assuming that this thread is not first subject to any imposed editing action) - it will not be too long before posts containing only personal judgements will appear in this thread. I will ignore these, not respond in kind and try to debate the issue – hopefully other posters may also.

The issue is not up for debate. Basaed on his repetitious postings The Shambles cannot seem to understand this. joe-clone

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 06:25 AM

A resolution?

The trouble is that some would consider a resolution be have been reached if or when they had managed - seemingly by any means and at any cost to our forum - to prevent me or any other poster from trying to discuss and debate the issue on our forum?

Rather than simply choosing the option of ignoring a debate they claim does not interest them and not opening the clearly titled threads on the subject.

When in fact the resolution would only have been reached if and when all posters are once again able to freely discuss this or any other issue on our forum.

And to be able to freely do this - without fear of judgement and editing action being imposed upon their contributions by some of their anonymous fellow posters.

Or without being subject to name-calling and personal abusive attacks by those who should know better and this form of posting now being thought to be setting an acceptable example to our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 04:26 AM

" Perhaps if a certain few posters stopped only throwing rotten tomatoes - we could then have a debate here about the issues? "

Once again Roger you repeat the same old canard, there is no ISSUE to debate, except in your head.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 04:12 AM

Hiya Jeri! No, I know he doesn't care about resolution and I am sure you're right about Max, probably on both counts and as I posted before MAYBE even Max is enjoying this. I think the most likely sceanrio is that he wrote Sham off long ago and could give a shit less what he says!   I wish we had the old radio programs available. I remember Max making a number of cutting digs one night at Roger's expense and it would be fun to keep linking those back. But with Roger's trollability at changing the subject every time he gets nailed it would just be more of the same.

What I'm looking forward to is the day we can just number the arguments and counter-arguments and commentary about the arguments:

SHAM: 12A, 123
SPAW: 421, 1387/B2
JERI: CS211b75 (that's kinda' long but really great)
SHAM: 14C27.1
JOE:   M/C Clo.e45
jeff: 876.2 & CD114
Mick: SB//df14
SHAM: 14C27.1 & Re-333
MARIO: FO//op67-7


Now there is some spirited debate for you right there!!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 08:31 PM

I don't have anything against honest debate. I just don't believe you're honest and I don't believe one guy standing on a soapbox dodging rotten tomatoes contitutes a debate.

Perhaps if a certain few posters stopped only throwing rotten tomatoes - we could then have a debate here about the issues?

Can you accept that the attempt to hold this debate is to try to ensure that all posters on our forum continue to be able to have that choice? Rather than to have some of their anonymous volunteer fellow posters - who now feel themselves qualified - to make this choice for them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 08:04 PM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.
Max RE: Explain the BS rules 26 Oct 99

When Max explains to our forum something different to the above - I will expect the posting of BS on our forum to be undertaken on a different basis to what he has stated here.

Until then - posts containing judgements and imposed actions like the following example from a fellow poster upon a BS thread - will be thought by many posters to have no rightful place on our forum. Until when or if Max does decide to publicly explain a fundamental change in the traditional friendly and welcoming values of our forum and of the status of BS threads... Sadly there is no shortage of similar or worse examples of such imposed judgements.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=72136&messages=60&page=1&desc=yes

I'm getting damn tired of trolls, and of the people who respond to them. I'm going to close this thread at least temporarily, and see if somebody can think of something else to talk about.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 07:55 PM

Spaw, I hope you don't think he actually wants a resolution! It's fairly obvious to me that he sabotages any possibility of amicablility by switching to different bait when whatever he's using goes stale.

Having met Max and knowing him just a bit, I figure if he reads Shambles' comlaints at all (or when they were fresh - sometime last century) he shrugs and thinks, "Oh well. Tough shit."

Then again, he might have given Roger a "Fuck off" response to PMs (he's done that before and I think Roger is capable of being way more of a PIA than Jon) and this is his method of retaliation.

I don't think it's working, unless the shifting whine is only intended to keep Shambles in the spotlight. We seem to be helping him become who he's destined to be. It's nice this little community is so willing, but you know what they say: "It takes a village..."

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 07:06 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 09:09 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.
Max RE: Explain the BS rules 26 Oct 99

When Max explains to our forum something different to the above - I will expect the posting of BS on our forum to be undertaken on a different basis to what he has stated here.

And he of course has spoken repeatedly over the ensuing years adding in rules as needed through Pene or Joe or the addition of Clones.......But you reuse to accept these things even though they are his answer and in your face.

Subject: RE: BBC2/PBS Sept 26 No Direction Home
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 12:36 PM

It is hard to remenber just how seriously things were taken back then.

A good example was the rather intense young man who was asking Bob Dylan about the deep meaning of the cover photo for Highway 61 and thought the choice of clothing for it - was of great significance.

Even when he was told by the man who should know - he was not prepared to accept the answer.

You ask it of others.....ask it of yourself. You have the answer, try to accept it.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 03:24 PM

Jeri, I thought that this was the Permathread!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 03:12 PM

Well some people really nurture a grudge, some even keep blowing on the embers to keep it alive, some day maybe they will run out of hot air!
G.

Q. If hot air makes a balloon rise how come he stays on the ground?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 02:45 PM

Sham, the 'debate' IS being held here. It's you arguing against whatever happens you don't like and for nothing and other people arguing back that you're annoying them. I don't have any problem with it, and I won't unless you start multiple threads on the same thing.

I really DO think you should be given your own permathread so you and your pals can carry this on forever. Those of us who don't want to read it can easily filter one thread out, and you're guaranteed it will never close and you won't feel forced to apply your agenda in other places (but you will).

I don't have anything against honest debate. I just don't believe you're honest and I don't believe one guy standing on a soapbox dodging rotten tomatoes contitutes a debate. There are people out there who like weirder stuff than this though.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 02:03 PM

Honestly, I believe there is a far greater number, a HUGE number, who have dipped into one of these and thought "Oops," and un-dipped.

Can you accept that the attempt to hold this debate is to try to ensure that all posters on our forum continue to be able to have that choice? Rather than to have some of their anonymous volunteer fellow posters - who now feel themselves qualified - to make this choice for them?

To try and ensure that all threads remain open to enable all posters to make this choice for themselves and are not subject - at the slightest excuse to personal judgements and imposed closure, deletion or any other forms of editing action - by their fellow posters.

To try and ensure that the word 'we' refers once again - to all contributors to our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 10:40 AM

Guest, you have to go back over the last several years and read all the non-consecutive chapters in Shambles' crusade to get to hundreds. Honestly, I believe there is a far greater number, a HUGE number, who have dipped into one of these and thought "Oops," and un-dipped.

There are enough people left though, who support him by providing him inspiration to keep going. More like a village than a city. Everybody knows "it takes a village..." But we HAVE that village here! Click Me.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 09:50 AM

There are not hundreds of people disagreeing with Shambles. I only count thirty one. The same people keep posting over and over.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 09:13 AM

Roger if you are going to quote an answer to a question you must also quote the question too, and the complete answer not just the bit you prefer.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 09:13 AM

From: Max - PM
Date: 10 Mar 00 - 12:54 AM

OK, gargoyle, you got it. I tried to give your membership back months ago, but you apparently never got my message. Your tactics are crude, you are often inappropriate and rude, and I obviously cannot ever agree with you for the simple fear that anyone would think that your type of efforts could or should be effective, but you are undoubtedly a knowledgeable member of our community. My motive for your membership? People want to be able to talk to you. and as ambiguous as I may seem here, my sole function is to facilitate that. because that is what The Mudcat is all about.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 09:09 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.
Max RE: Explain the BS rules 26 Oct 99

When Max explains to our forum something different to the above - I will expect the posting of BS on our forum to be undertaken on a different basis to what he has stated here.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 08:57 AM

You obviously consider this forum to be undemocratic Roger, if you consider it to be so, why do you continue to participate?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 08:19 AM

It's not our forum! We use it thanks to the generosity of Max, who has the right to do with it whatever he wishes, including setting up volunteer monitors.

Get with the plot. We have only those rights which Max chooses to allow us, and I for one think the guy shows almost superhuman forbearance in putting up with your constant attacks on his management of his property.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 06:34 AM

Head Waiter Excuse me monsieur and madame. (examines the fork) It's filthy, Gaston ... find out who washed this up, and give them their cards immediately.

Man Oh, no, no.

Head Waiter Better still, we can't afford to take any chances, sack the entire washing-up staff.

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5


Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 01:09 PM

OK, so now I know which volunteer closed the thread, and we've discussed the matter.
And as I've said earlier in this thread, it's an internal matter and has been resolved internally. That being said, I can't say anything more. Shambles has his honest answer, so I think it's time to close this thread.
-Joe Offer-

Has a totally honest answer in fact been provided to our forum? You judge. Closing threads

Was that thread closed for the first time - accidently or was its imposed closure intentional or personally motivated - The the final imposed closure was intentional. What is the justification for the imposition of this final personal judgement when the first closure was judged to be incorrect and the thread re-opened as a result?

Perhaps it can be explained exactly what damage would have been caused to our forum by leaving that thread (or any other thread) open?

You may agree with some posters and judge that ordinary posters now have no right to know the answer to such questions. I hope not - but would I hope that you agree that ordinary posters still have every right to post and ask such questions - on what still remains our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 05:55 PM

Posters to our forum - may judge these threads and some of their active participants to be boring – repetitious – long-winded – convoluted – mentally unstable – delusional – manipulative and post only to make other equally pointless personal judgements – but could these judgements be far more positively made - by simply ignoring such threads and letting the thread die a natural death?

Well you don't have to try to be the same,
I know it's hard, not to play that game.
But we are all different it's true,
It's only you can do the things you do.

Stand up proud, don't try to hide,
Say it loud, don't keep it inside.
It's better to fail, than to never have tried,
It's better to fail, than to never have tried,

Roger Gall 1996.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 04:01 PM

It's starting to pile up now ain't it Sham?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: jeffp
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 03:44 PM

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:08 PM

...

Kendall - It is indeed long been clear that this site belongs to Max and I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 03:30 PM

you have indeed made that exact statement.

Then please provide it?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 03:01 PM

I admit to having a very good time often at Roger's expense on these threads as it is impossible for me and many others to take the whole thing seriously. The subject matter that is so troubling to Roger is so trivial and minute that it is hard to see why it has become such an issue to him.

Max's refusal to respond when he knows what is going on speaks volumes as well. Roger has received the answer and he refuses to accept it. Instead he continues to rag on Joe and others who have given him their best answers but are now well fried from his constant harping. It is sad that this will all end badly for everyone but that is where we are headed.

I have been sent recently a PM from Roger entitled "Polite Request." I have found 4 pretty fair ways of angering Sham AND I have had fun using them. In his polite request Roger ask that I cease and desist one of them and that I should as he was asking politely for the second time. But I have to ask ...... Roger, why should I do what you refuse to do?

Granted things have not always been polite, but sometimes they have and Roger you have had literally hundreds of nice folks asking in the best ways for you to cease and desist. Why can't you do as they request?

And of course then I read this:

Subject: RE: BBC2/PBS Sept 26 No Direction Home
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 12:36 PM

It is hard to remenber just how seriously things were taken back then.

A good example was the rather intense young man who was asking Bob Dylan about the deep meaning of the cover photo for Highway 61 and thought the choice of clothing for it - was of great significance.

Even when he was told by the man who should know - he was not prepared to accept the answer.

You ask that of "others"............Ask it of youself.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 02:00 PM

you have indeed made that exact statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 01:46 PM

Because sometimes, dude, ya just gotta do something guided by your better judgement.

You have stated that you wish to have no say in the way this forum is run.

MMario - You know that I have stated no such thing as you have re-posted my quote. Perhaps you should actually read it.

There is a difference between wishing to having a say in shaping our forum by contributions to it and by expressing an opinion on this - which Max has encouraged posters to do - and having a say in the way in which Max chooses to run his website. That remains his business.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 01:29 PM

Roger -

"fellow posters" is totally incorrect and irrelavant when they are acting as proxies for Max. As it the term volunteer as they were all recruited by Max.

You have stated that you wish to have no say in the way this forum is run.

why not practice what you are preaching?

You have objected to editing of posts - yet you post quyotes out of context and partial qoutes.

Why not practice what you are preaching?

You claim people only post to your threads with personal opinons - yet you do exactly the same thing.

Why not practice what you are preaching?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 01:20 PM

"This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate."

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.
Max RE: Explain the BS rules 26 Oct 99

In practice - as the rather chaotic and counter-productive actions evidenced below above would tend to show - the BS rules would now appear to be made-up as they go along and are readily imposed upon our forum by a unknown number of (well-intentioned) fellow posters.


This BS thread – about censorship - contained a post (claiming the 100th post) that was anonymously censored (and this thread has now been subject to imposed closure) Censorship on Mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM

Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think.
I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones.
-Joe Offer-

This BS thread – about the anonymous imposing of thread titles – had a change to its title imposed. In the UK

Subject: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:55 PM

I changed the title of this thread to
In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
The purpose of this change was to give readers the freedom to know what was inside the thread without having to open it. In other words, it was done for the sake of clarity.

In response to Bert's comments, let me say that messages from Shambles have never been changed. Thread titles and duplicate messages are another matter. Thread titles are an index to our threads, and are routinely changed when clarity is lacking. If at all posssible, we add a clarifying tag or parenthetical statement to the thread title, and avoid changing the essence of the thread title. We are well aware that Shambles believes that thread titles should only be changed after consultation and such, and we respectfully disagree because that process is comubersome and most people just don't seem to think it's a really big deal. I think it's safe to say that it's a matter of opinion, one that will never be resolved. Such is life.

In the thread in question, the title was originally Minister say's jamming OK. For the sake of clarity, one of our volunteers changed to thitle to Minister say's jamming OK in UK. I suppose I would have changed it to (UK) Minister says jamming OK, but that's neither here nor there. In the end, it doesn't seem to make a whole hell of a lot of difference, but the UK designation does make it a bit more clear.

We also routinely change thread titles that are ALLCAPS. We routinely add dates to obituary threads, and we move non-music threads to the non-music section - usually without renaming them. it's just normal housekeeping, nothing that should make much difference to most people - so it seems silly to go through some lengthy approval process.

Duplicate messages are routinely deleted. It just isn't fair to post the same message in several threads.
-Joe Offer-

And this Tech thread – about thread closures – was relegated to the BS section – subject to anonymous closure – re- opened and then for reasons that were equally as unclear as the first time- subject to final closure. Closing threads

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 14 Sep 05 - 01:09 PM

OK, so now I know which volunteer closed the thread, and we've discussed the matter.
And as I've said earlier in this thread, it's an internal matter and has been resolved internally. That being said, I can't say anything more. Shambles has his honest answer, so I think it's time to close this thread.
-Joe Offer-

If you really see a need to join Shambles in discussing this subject further, see Opening threads a debate which is really about closing threads.


[PM] Joe Offer BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 31 Mar 05

Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos.

So, Max appointed some of us to try to keep down the worst of the nastiness. We don't do enough to satisfy some people (Clinton Hammond, for example), and we do too much to satisfy Shambles.

So, we continue to stumble along what we see as the middle path, knowing that we will never satisfy everybody. Such is life.

-Joe Offer-


Our few well-intentioned fellow posters now seem to feel themselves qualified to impose this judgement upon their fellows but do not feel they or their actions should be judged in turn.

They do not seem now able or very willing in the future to contact posters before imposing judgement nor to communicate to each another very well – before or after these actions.

Nor to have any clear overall objective other than to loyally ensure that some of their number can continue to impose their personal judgement upon the contributions of their fellow posters – but in the process - still remain anonymous (and unaccountable for their editing actions to our forum).

My view is that if things don't change – they will stay the same - as in some respects on our forum, they sadly and stubbornly have. It is also my view that if these actions are not to continue to just 'stumble along' and the attempted justification and defence of these actions are not to become even more chaotic, judgmental and nasty - that improvement is urgently required in response to those actions evidenced in this post (and elsewhere).

Surely any editing action imposed on our forum deserves to be seen to be open, fair and needs to have a clear objective? When such imposition is limited to this – it can then be defended as such – and I will be the first to be seen to defend it.

As this current judgement, secrecy and imposition is supposedly being undertaken only for the benefit of our forum – perhaps it is time for our forum to have a reasoned discussion on the current benefits and extent of these measures? To decide and establish if the direction we are currently 'stumbling' along in – is in fact the direction that our forum wishes to go.

To enable our forum to suggest ways in which these benefits can be best provided, without any more needless division and how new posters can be best encouraged to contribute to our forum. And probably most importantly - by not placing at any further risk the traditional freedom of expression, provided for all to post on equal terms - on the part of Max's website that he has kindly set aside for contributions from the public.

If there is any crusade - is seems to one of some fellow posters wishing to prevent free and open debate on a discussion forum set aside by the site's owner Max - for that very purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 01:05 PM

"This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate."

There have been many, many attempts at a reasoned debate in between the sarcasm and jokes, but I get the feeling that Shambles will never feel that there IS a reasonable debate until and unless everyone up to & including Max agrees with him....(or at least surrenders!).

It just goes on and on and on. Joe has explained it, many others have agreed with Joe and have tried everything from pleading to sarcasm to reason to ignoring to .........well, other things.

It is, simply, hopeless. It is a case of "I want it MY way and no amount of explaining the 'management rules and procedures' will convince me why I can't have it my way."

It is a case of subjective 'righteous indignation' run amok, and unlike the PELS issue, where there was an obvious infringement on freedoms, and MANY sympathetic ears, this crusade seems to have almost no fellow crusaders.....Yet it goes & goes & goes with relentless, tedious hair-splitting over who said what and claimed which and did what to whom.....and whether any of it really mattered.

I'll swear, if Samuel Beckett were still writing, he could do a tour de force sequel to "Waiting for Godót" with the material from all these threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 11:03 AM

The Motor Sickle Song
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:53 AM

I am 82

Wolfgang thrown out


http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1277273

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wesley S
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:46 AM

"I will ignore these, not respond in kind"

Isn't that cut and paste a response ?

Isn't MY cut and paste a response ?

When is a response NOT a response ?

When is ignoring a response NOT ignoring a response ?

What WAS the meaning of the motorcycle on the t-shirt anyway ??

And what was the meaning of "I don't want a pickle" ??

Please respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:36 AM

Good job I didn't mention the dirty knife

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5


Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:31 PM

The alteration it needs must occur in the minds of the folks that respond to this stuff. Roger is entitled to his opinion, and in virtually every posters response they have indicated they are tired of his restating the same thing over and over; they are tired of him twisting quotes to serve himself; they go on and on about how he goes on and on. Do you folks learn anything? Who is worse, Roger or you? The question to Roger about who is "we" has been asked over and over.

Roger isn't the problem anymore. Those that feed him are.

Is this practice - and the current encouragement of the posting of only personal judgements of fellow posters by example – a really desirable example to now on our forum and if it is thought not to be – what (if anything) can be done by posters to our forum - to address it?

This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate. However, I suspect and fear that - (always assuming that this thread is not first subject to any imposed editing action) - it will not be too long before posts containing only personal judgements will appear in this thread. I will ignore these, not respond in kind and try to debate the issue – hopefully other posters may also.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 12:27 AM

I know I certainly do Bill. Very astute on your part, a tremendous post and one worthy of inclusion. ALSO IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUE SHAMBLES POSTING STYLE---The following you might have nissed;

Subject: RE: BBC2/PBS Sept 26 No Direction Home
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 12:36 PM

It is hard to remenber just how seriously things were taken back then.

A good example was the rather intense young man who was asking Bob Dylan about the deep meaning of the cover photo for Highway 61 and thought the choice of clothing for it - was of great significance.

Even when he was told by the man who should know - he was not prepared to accept the answer.

******************************************************************

LMAO!!!! PUH-LEEZE!!!!

Simply unbelievable...............

The irony in that post is so overwhelming that words to express it escape me. I can hardly wait for the next chapter in "The Pot Calls the Kettle Black."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:43 PM

I have tried valiantly to resist reposting....but...but.....

I can't help myself...I asked this simple question on another thread, and got no clear answer.


who knows, maybe it will be deleted by volunteers imposing their onerous judgements on me.





"Shambles...don't you realize that posting reasoned responses to your recapitulative exhortations requires us not only to consider the contextual parameters of the indicated isssue, but also to analyze the temporal framework of the argument so as not to introduce irrelevant personal judgements which have already been judged by the majority of the respondents to not focus on the current situational aspects of all the NON-judgemental impositions which may have been earlier, or at least in different threads, already rendered valueless in the minds of those whose concerns regress to the former devalued impositions of judgement by not only anonymous volunteers, but also, rightfully, by other members (who, posting under their own names, might also BE one of the judgemental volunteers) who decide not to enter the debate without knowing whether the subject at hand has, in fact, been imposed, whether in the thread title or merely during non-judgemental editing which I am led to understand that you also disapprove of in most cases where previous permission has not been sought(from the original poster (or originator of the thread) prior to the perviously mentioned discussion, which, by virtue of its temporal priority, ought to supercede ANY subsequent discussion of judgements, whether anonymously imposed or merely parenthetically referred to , either by you, as 'chief inquisitor' of the investigation, or by newer members of the forum, many of whom have not had the experience of BEING improperly edited or their words censored, and thus who might, perhaps, be reluctant to join the majority whose previous experience has been inevitably affected by repetitious reduncancy relating to the incessant verbosity inundating the very foundations of the entire issues of whether, in consideration of the best interests of our forum, the anonymity of the volunteers (most of whom did not actually volunteer, but were, I am given to understand, recruited,)should be compromised due to the unmitigated Gall of one dissatisfied member who evidently has little other hobbies than to compose interminable and self-referential posts which intrinsically relate to one individual concept of discussion and the overriding value system thought to be, by our moderators, not essential to the more central core of the entire point of having an open forum where dissimilar viewpoints could BE discussed without being left vulnerable to extraneous digressions about imposition of personal taste by those who have no interest in the inveterate balderdash which usually accompanies such digressions and causes many entirely incomprehensible paragraphs to be perpetrated on an unwilling readership anyway?

Wouldn't you agree?"

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 08:58 PM

"The rest of the audience did seem to be enjoying the performance (or may have quietly left) or were at least trying to listen to it. In any case the majority seemed to be happy for the performance to continue or were too polite to join in with the shouting-out of insults. " The Shambles

Roger, if I understand you correctly you are intimating that those who sit here quietly are either "enjoying the performance" or "happy for the performance to continue".

They is none so bland as those who will not see.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 08:47 PM

shanmbles-you are rubbisdh and bloody moaning, i suprised you still m,oaning, i didnty look at mudcat for 1 month, i look now, and your , moany threrads are still here, you bloody moan all time, wyhy not shut up for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 05:59 AM

Subject: RE: BBC2/PBS Sept 26 No Direction Home
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 12:36 PM

It is hard to remenber just how seriously things were taken back then.

A good example was the rather intense young man who was asking Bob Dylan about the deep meaning of the cover photo for Highway 61 and thought the choice of clothing for it - was of great significance.

Even when he was told by the man who should know - he was not prepared to accept the answer.

******************************************************************

LMAO!!!! PUH-LEEZE!!!!

Simply unbelievable...............

The irony in that post is so overwhelming that words to express it escape me. I can hardly wait for the next chapter in "The Pot Calls the Kettle Black."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 02:27 AM

Like many other things - that is perhaps not a matter for you to judge.

Many people are perfectly happy to do the kicking - some are even happy to see others being kicked. None of this makes kicking someone a very friendly thing to do.

Very few of us are happy when we are the ones being kicked.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 04:49 PM

Oh, no, Roger. Our editing is never unfriendly. We editors always keep a friendly, non-judgmental attitude. Please don't read unfriendliness into our editing. We're all as friendly as puppydogs.
-Joe Offer, Head Puppydog-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 12:52 PM

When a poster starts a new thread and where there may already have been existing threads on a subject – they risk being judged by our anonymous volunteer fellow posters of needless duplication. The thread creation screen does rather suggest that re-opening any existing thread on the subject is the preferred one.

But if you then re-open older threads on this subject – you risk being judged by our anonymous volunteer fellow posters as 'flooding' our forum with old threads. This is assuming that you can refresh them and these threads have not been the subject of enforced or automatic closure – a fact that will usually not be established until the poster has scrolled all the way down to the submit box.

The result of either judgement by our (undoubtably well-intentioned) anonymous volunteer fellow posters is the same rather unfriendly approach – imposed editing action – without the poster's advanced knowledge or agreement. There is a risk of being damned - either way.

Many new posters who are not hardened to the skewed alternative reality that our forum now appears to be subject to - may decide that the safe course for them - and the only one certain not to result in them receiving accusations like them wasting precious bandwidth or being subject to many other personal judgements - is for them to decide not to post at all.

It would appear that the starting of new threads is not now the preferred option and the re-opening of older threads appears now to be the preferred one. In order to make this clear to our forum and encourage a consistent approach – perhaps it would be a good idea to ensure that all threads can remain open for new contributions - especially as our forum is now informed that the closing of threads presents no technical advantage to the efficient running of the site?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 05:11 AM

You're not comparing yourself to Dylan now are you Roger? My god man you're adding delusions of grandeur to paranoia now!
BTW as per your stated method of avoiding facing up to life by not answering abusive or judgmental posts, [nice way of not answering difficult questions]I do not expect or want, any response to this post.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 08:28 PM

Watching 'No Direction Home' tonight. There was footage of Bob Dylan being heckled on stage by some members of the audience. These noisy few presumably knew what to expect and would have payed for admission but were not apparently enjoying the performance.

However, they were still staying in their seats and repeatly shouting-out for Bob Dylan to 'get off', calling him names and noisely indulging in other such unfriendly banter. They seemed to think that there was something wrong with him trying to continue with his performance because it consisted of material that obviously was not to their personal taste. And they seemed to think this amounted to something of a betrayal - which gave them some right to try and shout-it down.

The rest of the audience did seem to be enjoying the performance (or may have quietly left) or were at least trying to listen to it. In any case the majority seemed to be happy for the performance to continue or were too polite to join in with the shouting-out of insults.

Despite these few audience members insisting on inflicting these poor manners on the majority - this poor example was not generally followed and - in the venue designed for this purpose - the show went on.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 06:02 AM

This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate. However, I suspect and fear that - (always assuming that this thread is not first subject to any imposed editing action) - it will not be too long before posts containing only personal judgements will appear in this thread. I will ignore these, not respond in kind and try to debate the issue – hopefully other posters may also.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 09:02 PM

242 posts so far on this thread alone.

Shambles 71 posts (29.3% of total)

Don T 4 posts (1.65% of total)

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 08:53 PM

Shambles 7:22 AM.

"Those who post almost as many times as I do - to refresh threads to only say they do not care - are perhaps the ones who are putting the most effort into missing the point".


At last, a direct answer in your own words. That's one small step towards understanding what is meant by debate. Well done.

What a pity that the response should be so factually inaccurate.

1. I do not post almost as often as you. It would take more time than I have left on this earth to post a significant fraction of your output on this subject.

2. I do not post simply to say I do not care. I post to point out the incontrovertible fact that the vast majority of members do not agree with you, and do not care if Joe and/or the clones make minor changes to titles, or edit out contentious, or repetitive contributions.

If this forum were a democratic institution along parliamentary lines, your supporters would assuredly lose their deposits.

As it is not a democracy, but the property of Max, your concerns are of little importance, the point which almost all of us have acknowledged, and which you have missed, or decided to ignore.

A sensible man will usually decide at some point to stop banging his head against a brick wall, if only to get rid of the headache.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 06:13 PM

I'll do the deciding
Humans only need guiding
To do want I want them to do
Justifed by the means
The end - seen in my dreams
May become a nightmare to you

The point that some posters are appear to be putting so much effort into missing - is NOT if things like whether "informative thread titles" are desirable on our forum.

Things like this may well be thought to be desirable. But the point is - are these things now so desirable - to the extent of having them (rather selectively and anonymously) imposed?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 09:01 AM

I see Jeri's still lobbing insults. Predictable.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 08:30 AM

Good job I didn't mention the dirty knife

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5