BS: Opening threads - a debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 04:08 PM

"One for non-music related subjects will be probably all the prefixes that will ever be required."
Shambles, are you trying to say you know better than those who asked for the other prefixes and now use them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 02:47 PM

The final choice of a thread title is limited by a number of factors. The final choice of the originator - limited by these factors - will probably not be thought to be the exact one that any other poster may have created. Like most things - this is matter of taste - for which as we know - there is no accounting for.

You could get a committee to decide on the best choice, have a vote or many other methods could be tried. But it is probably best to accept the limitations and accept the originator's title.

Any imposed change will imply that the originator's choice was judged as lacking in some way. This feeling may be added to - if those imposing this judgement are able to create longer thread titles.

The forum is divided into music-related and non-music related sections. One for non-music related subjects will be probably all the prefixes that will ever be required.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 02:39 PM

It's an ideal thred title for certain contributors
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Catchy isn't it?
G ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 02:09 PM

And, just to show you how unequal things are - it appears to me that some spaces are different sizes, so the lowercase letter "i" does not get as much space as the letter "M." If I want to fit more words in, I am forced against my will to use lowercase letters and lean toward narrower letters.

This is patently unfair.
Write a letter to your congressmember or MP.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 10:15 AM

Any serious contribution posted to the debate will be read by me (Shambles)



It is a simple suggestion - that if posters were permitted to have the same number of spaces available to them as our volunteers do - posters may be able to make as informative titles as our volunteers impose. Perhaps this measure may prevent the need for any future title changes to be imposed as a matter of routine? The length of the imposed title above does demonstrate the sort of title that ordinary posters could not create.

It may very well be that a poster - would make a more informative title - if they could use the few extra spaces that our volunteers can.

It is a simple suggestion - that if posters were permitted to have the same number of spaces available to them as our volunteers do - posters may be able to make as informative titles as our volunteers impose.

My point is simply that if ordinary posters were able to use as many letters as out volunteers are - they may be able to produce more informative titles - without the need for any inposed change.

I was asking questions to establish if there was a difference in the number of title spaces available. When it was established that it was a fact that our volunteers did have more spaces available than the ordinary poster - I just suggested that perhaps a change would be a good idea.

How come this new (imposed) thread title can be so much longer than the ones that ordinary posters can put in the box?

Perhaps part of the problem could be solved by enabling ordinary posters to make longer and more informative thread titles?

If I am right - perhaps if us ordinary posters were given - even the extra three or four spaces that appears to be available to you and your anonymous volunteers - more informative thread titles could be given by ordinary posters?


Would it cause great technical problems to the running of the site - to provide the increased number of characters available in the thread title creation box - to all contributors and not just those trusted with edit buttons? (Shambles)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 08:31 AM

There are 50 spaces available for titles - period.
~ The 'edit' space has 50 in one block.
~ The 'create thread' has 50 in the form of up to 10 for the prefix. I belive 'Tune Req: " has 10.

If you want the options to be exactly the same, it means an end to prefixes. I think more people like having that than not and prefixes are available because people asked for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 03:48 AM

If everybody has the same number of characters to use for thread titles then I can make sure that I use them all in every thread I start, and then nobody can add anything to them because there'll be no space; so there!!
G.¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Sep 05 - 02:21 AM

Not that it troubles me, I don't understand the reasoning for some having more characters to play with than others - any sequence of characters wii take the same space regardless of who enters it. One thing's for sure though, the volunteers can not have coded the system to work that way.

I am not sure that there is any reasoning for this. From what I was given to understand - it was just something that happened. When the difference was discovered - it just remained. When a request was made for this disparity to be addressed - it still just remains

Would it cause great technical problems to the running of the site - to provide the increased number of characters available in the thread title creation box - to all contributors and not just those trusted with edit buttons?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 12:19 PM

Can it be finally accepted that our forum is now the loser and everyone suffers when it is cluttered-up by such totally pointless personal judgements - whoever is making them?

Any serious contribution posted to the debate will be read by me and I may even respond (in my usual convoluted way).

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 11:47 AM

Gee - Roger - I don't know. why don't you stop doing it?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 11:41 AM

What is the point of all of these repeated public posting only of personal judgements of fellow posters with the danger only of a possible response in kind?

What is the point of posting such judgements when it is clear that none of these will ever illicit a response in kind from the poster being judged and abused - but will only set a poor example and encourage others to feel that such posts are now acceptable on our forum?

Can it be finally accepted that our forum is now the loser and everyone suffers when it is cluttered-up by such totally pointless personal judgements - whoever is making them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 11:24 AM

Amen!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 11:17 AM

In creating the following thread BBc/PBS 26 September No Direction Home I made a typo in the first post and I received a very polite PM from a named volunteer fellow poster - offering to correct this. I readily agreed to this and I see that this correction has taken place.

I also find that a change to my chosen thread title has once again been imposed by some anonymous volunteer fellow poster - again without my knowledge or permission!

*Apology time.*

It has correctly and politely been pointed out that I did not read the PM properly. A request was also made in this PM for the named volunteer to add the words 'Bob Dylan' (if they would fit). So I did in fact agree to this change - if unknowingly and I aplogise to our forum for the incorrect information I supplied. There was no imposition in this case.

Our volunteer would have been able to make these added words fit into the box - as it is possible for them to use more characters and create longer thread titles.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 08:28 AM

Yeah, Leej, what Wolfgang said. Between you, him and I, we have been in these precincts for a lot of years. That is germane only in that you know a lot about us. I feel very similar on this issue.

Having said that, I find some validity in your post, specifically as it relates to how people react to this poster. He has demonstrated time and again that his intent has nothing to do with debate, and everything to do with manipulation. So what do others here do? Allow him to manipulate them. And then he chuckles. He is certainly not the likes of Martin Gibson, but his tactics are similar.

Roger's positions and refusal to do what he asks others to do are an annoyance. Those that feed his plan are endangering a pretty cool place. IMHO.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 07:39 AM

Lonesome EJ,

Shambles' points are clear enough and not the problem. His way of arguing is it with me. I have lost all of the not small respect I once had for him. The combination of asking for a reasonable debate on the one hand with the complete refusal obvious in his posts to engage in it on the other hand makes it impossible for me to take him serious anymore. Third-grader would be a flattering description.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 07:29 AM

This title change (and perhaps many others) may well have been urgently needed - the imposition of this change in this case was plainly needless.

What is the point of pushing someone before you have established if they are prepared to jump anyway? Unless you just wish to push your weight around and be be seen to be unfriendly?

There was no real need for the named volunteer to PM me first - but this move was polite, friendly and was appreciated.

And all the good relations gained by this - were lost immediately by another anonymous volunteer fellow poster's needless imposition and failure (or inability) to communicate with me or their fellow volunteers.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 07:04 AM

Well shambles, I don't consider the change needless, unfriendly etc. but...

Not that it troubles me, I don't understand the reasoning for some having more characters to play with than others - any sequence of characters wii take the same space regardless of who enters it. One thing's for sure though, the volunteers can not have coded the system to work that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 06:51 AM

I am sure that the important fact - that this change was needlessly imposed will again be ignored by many posters and the case made that this thread title is now clearer.

Jon - The practical solution is rather simple. If the same amount of characters available to those anonymous volunteer fellow posters - were to be made available to us ordinary posters - we would all be able to create longer and perhaps clearer titles.

The answer to how to prevent all this needless, selective and unfriendly imposition on our forum and to encourage our volunteer fellow posters to communicate with one another - appears to be rather less simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 06:33 AM

If you had tried adding Bob Dylan but couldn't and they added it, as far as I can make out, they did you a favour.

Or did you try to add it because you felt it needless?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 06:17 AM

In creating the following thread BBc/PBS 26 September No Direction Home I made a typo in the first post and I received a very polite PM from a named volunteer fellow poster - offering to correct this. I readily agreed to this and I see that this correction has taken place.

I also find that a change to my chosen thread title has once again been imposed by some anonymous volunteer fellow poster - again without my knowledge or permission!

I am sure that the important fact - that this change was needlessly imposed will again be ignored by many posters and the case made that this thread title is now clearer. I would have readily agreed to such a change so there was no need for its bad-mannered imposition. In fact I had originally tried to include the words 'Bob Dylan'. But there were not enough characters available to an ordinary poster like me to fit it in the box.

Perhaps an apology for this needless imposition can be provided to our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 03:39 AM

Lonesome - with all due respect, Roger did not start this thread with the intention of being the sole contributor, or to only be joined in it by people who agreed with him. It is meant to be 'a debate'. Granted, it may not be the most structured debate, but you have to allow people with opposing views to have their say too - not just tell them to not say anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 21 Sep 05 - 01:41 AM

I first started posting to this forum in 1999, and I stuck around because there was an ongoing and intelligent discussion of music, a spirit of fun, and frankly, a sense that anything short of obscenity and personal attack was acceptable. Mainly though, I kept coming back because of the type of people this forum attracted. Mudcatters were about as accepting and non-judgemental a bunch as I have ever known. I have developed lasting friendships here, even though I have met very few of you in real life.
Those I have had the pleasure of meeting have uniformly proven to be everything they seemed to be in the Forum. These people include Roger and his wife, who came to my house for dinner some years back. I can't claim to be interested in all of the things Roger has passionate opinions about, but over the years I have enjoyed the times when we have conversed in these threads, and I would certainly miss his presence here.
His point, for those of you who are having trouble following it, seens to me to be concerned with censorship in the Forum, and more particularly with the conditions in which that censorship is applied. In addition, it is concerned with an atmosphere of personal attack which has always been an element here, even if a suppressed one. I have witnessed personal attack used against several people whom I like very much, and frankly, it pisses me off. Many people who are confronted by these attacks will simply ignore them, or stop posting altogether.
Obviously, Roger won't do that. Roger has the need, relentless as he may be, convoluted as he can be, to air his feelings and opinions. What he is saying is : Don't fucking respond if you object to it. Don't post! I am certain that what some see as deliberate trolling by Roger is, in fact, a heartfelt concern and burning desire to make his case. You can't tell me that, with thread titles like "What Time is it where You Are?" or "The Shatnerization of North Carolina", Roger's threads are extroardinarily inane or are using up critical bandwidth, or that their titles need to be altered for clarity. I don't know or care what the issue was with the interruption of the "Closing Threads" thread.
I just think its time to stop acting like a band of third graders throwing rocks at Roger during recess.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 20 Sep 05 - 05:18 PM

er...thank you Spaw....I was going to say something along those lines but I would have probably used more letters, while meaning the same thing....

Cheers - you saved me a job....

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Sep 05 - 01:50 PM

You're such a complete and total dumbass with so little knowledge of the net that it's unbelievable.

If a clone wished to remain anonymous here at the 'Cat then the easiest thing to do is to do what is done at other forums. The clone acquires a second screen name and uses that for his mod duties. He can then send PM's if desired or not. My experience says that on most larger forums, the mods send a PM less than probably 10% of the time.

Why is that? The decision belongs to the moderator and he is supervised by someone else. Members have agreed to terms of usage and they have no say in the moderation of the board.

You don't either Sham. Try to understand that. You have no say really in what goes on here. Quit deluding yourself with a 6 year old throw-off line from Max. As far as moderation of this place goes, you and I are equal and we both occupy a place equal to that of dinosaur shit....completely irrelevant! If your opinion mattered really, Max would have responded to you by now jackass.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 05 - 01:43 PM

On our forum we now have quite the reverse problem.

The ones who plainly cannot resist refreshing threads by posting the anonymous personal judgements of their fellow posters or inserting these into existing posts and setting this poor example - are not the (usually anonymous) trolls and flamers but often the few supposedly trusted to deal with the trolls and flamers.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Sep 05 - 12:44 PM

Why is the assumption made that this is any way about anyone wishing to know the names of those who feel themselves qualified to impose their personal judgement upon their fellow posters?

Joe Offer is the only one who imposes his personal judgement on his fellow posters on any regular basis and is prepared to be known. Posters may not ever agree to what his imposed judgement may be or feel that Joe Offer is anymore qualified to impose his personal judgement upon them - than any one else - but the fact that he is at least prepared to be known and be seen to be responsible for his actions - is respected.

A practical result of Joe Offer being known - is that it is perfectly possible for him to send a PM to any other forum member in advance of any imposition - indicating to the originator that he judged that some change was required to their contribution.

This polite and simple process (that I have requested) - is not possible for a volunteer who wishes to operate anonymously. They have to impose their judgement without the originator's knowledge or permission - as for them to send a PM would not be possible if they wished to remain anonymous.   

It is my wish to see any editing process on our forum to reflect the traditional basic values of our forum and be open, fair and to be seen to have a clear objective.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Sep 05 - 11:14 AM

Exactly, John. The only reason trolls want to know this, is to give them more to bitch about. Trolls play a game of manipulating folks in order to enhance what they see as self worth. They see it as "Look how easy it is to make them dance". When the mod's stay unseen, they don't like it. Pene told me that long ago, right after I revealed that I was a mudelf. I have come to know the wisdom of what he said. It is why I am very disappointed with those that continue to feed this man's need to "make 'em dance". And the one's that should know better most of all, are the one's that are most disappointing. One of the Mudcats earliest and most respected members sent me an email and in it made the comment that "Mudcat has gone to shit". I don't agree, but it certainly is once again suffering. Not because we have sorry individuals who get a perverse enjoyment out of their incessant and obsessive posts. The Internet will always let them get more exposure than they could get in the pre-internet age. But many of these folks that continue to respond are either tilting at windmills (which means they have their own issues), or have a twisted sense of self importance.

Just rambling,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Sep 05 - 10:06 AM

Knowing their names won't change their judgements, it will just give ammunition to carping and complaining self obsessed posters. It will be used as a hook to hang their complaints on, and a name to vilify, not to mention someone they can blame for all their ills imaginary or otherwise. Nobody has the need to know the identity of those who police this site, and even less do they have a RIGHT to know.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 01:36 PM

The reason why our forum's Editing Staff's knickers are currently so twisted over this issue and why PMs could not be sent before any editing action is imposed - is the stubborn insistence of keeping a few of their number anonymous.

So this few can continue to anonymously impose their personal judgements upon the words of their fellow posters (who are prepared to be known and responsible for their actions) and insert comments like the following vital examples - into existing posts.

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

Or from Max what about Shambles requests

Yes, Rog-o, as you can see it was redundant and covered by this thread. And no one was talking turds over there, so I exercised editorial control so that we can talk about turds. Stay on subject please. Mudelf

I am closing this. It is redundant and deals with the same issue as two other threads. It will just become another 1000 post thread with nothing new to add. Please use the existing threads.
Thanks, Mudelf

I see you have arrived first. Blessings upon you Mudelf....I have your back!.......FatClone

All of these personal comments could of course be made in conventional posts – whilst using their usual posting names. Or not made at all. But with such examples being set by these few anonymous trusted ones – it is hardly surprising that other posters may now feel that following this example – and posting only personal judgements of their fellow posters - is one that it is now OK to follow on our forum. …Is this now OK?

Is the cost of continuing this anonimimity for a few really worth any benefit that it may be thought to bring to our forum? Or is our forum being compromised by the defence of anonymous posting and anonymous imposed editing action?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 01:34 PM

Schadenfreude

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 12:54 PM

It is sad to see a person's "condition" played out in such a public way. It is even sadder to see bright people feed it. This is a mountain made out of a molehill. But Roger ain't the guilty party. He can't help himself. Those of you who continue to enable his sad behaviour are the ones responsible. IMHO.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 12:50 PM

Have you tried stamps and an envelope?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 12:46 PM

And now we're back to pomposity.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 12:35 PM

For to post repeatedly to a thread that does not interest you – complain about the fact that other posters are still posting to the thread and expressing a view that the thread is too long or has run its course. Or to post only some indication of frustration like AAAAAAAGGGGG – will quite logically and counter-productively for these posters - only serve to refresh and prolong the thread's active life.

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 07:28 AM

I still think it a pretty accurate description of your role on Mudcat Roger, so thanks for quoting it. Nice to know we agree with me.
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 07:17 AM

there may be many more reading - who may be interested in the answer or hearing what harm it would do to our forum - if our forum were to be provided with the answer?

I for one couldn't care less. Most of us don't even care enough to respond to you.

$600 by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 06:40 AM

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 02:36 PM

Divisions are caused by divisive people.
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 06:22 AM

Shambles, to answer your original question - here is my view:

Because people are just that - people. And by definition therefore also fallible, mischievous, caring, responsive when their buttons are pressed, forgiving, curious, and all those things that make up this wonderful species.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 05:59 AM

I think you would find the internal combustion engine easier to understand than Shambles, you can get handbooks and instructions with an engine. It is also easier to stop, but not as easy to start.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 05:58 AM

3. You ask me what harm the ending of public speculation would do. I really don't think that there is any public speculation on the subject. The phrase 'Public speculation' suggests that a number of people are asking the same questions or, indeed, speculating as to what the answers to those questions might be. There is no 'number of people' from where I am standing - just you.

Even if it were just me who wished to be informed - the current and continuing speculation as to if this was an accidental closure or not - would still be taking place in public. In anyone's book - that would make it public speculation.

The following public speculation was made in a post following yours - in Closing threads Even if that is only three fellow posters publicly speculating - there may be many more reading - who may be interested in the answer or hearing what harm it would do to our forum - if our forum were to be provided with the answer?

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: GUEST,Jon - PM
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 07:07 PM

How likely is it that this thread's closure was really inadvertent?

Given the one click process Joe Offer described, I'd say it's very likely. I don't know the mechanism here but it is also possible that the "culprit" was unaware of what they did.

>Snip<

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 05:48 AM

Nope - 'fraid I can't - but I'm not going to lose sleep over it....

Come to think of it...there are a lot of things in life I can't explain - such as how do televisions and the internal combustion engine work. I don't need to know, I don't lose sleep over that either....

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 05:40 AM

I can't see any reason why it should have been closed. The "close thread" link is in a location where a volunteer could click it accidentally and not notice, so it may have been closed inadvertantly. Whatever the case, I don't think it should have been closed. I reopened the thread.
-Joe Offer-

The above speculation is contained in an editing comment (in brown) from the thread that Joe Offer has now imposed closure upon called Closing threads

Can YOU explain any real reason why that thread needed the imposed judgement to be anonymously closed - re-opened by Joe Offer - and then closed by Joe Offer?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 05:39 AM

1. Shambles - when he is acting as a fellow poster, Joe is as entitled as you or I to speculate, as much or little as he wants to, about whatever does or does not take his fancy.

2. I require no evidence beyond the fact that Joe has told me that he has given all the information he is permitted to give. Whilst that might be called 'hearsay', I really don't care enough to contact Max myself and have Joe's statement proven or otherwise. Plus, I am persuaded that, on the balance of probabilities, this seems to be a likely truth (if I needed persuading).

3. You ask me what harm the ending of public speculation would do. I really don't think that there is any public speculation on the subject. The phrase 'Public speculation' suggests that a number of people are asking the same questions or, indeed, speculating as to what the answers to those questions might be. There is no 'number of people' from where I am standing - just you. If you really want to end your own speculation, ask Max - he might tell you, he might not! I really don't care.

I have bigger things to worry about in my life - be thankful that you, obviously, don't!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Sep 05 - 02:25 AM

No one has prevented Joe Offer - a fellow poster of ours - from publicly speculating on our forum - that the first closure may have been accidental.

What evidence do you have that Max is preventing this fellow poster from confirming the answer to my question to our forum - now that this information is available?

What possible harm to our forum - do YOU consider that ending the public speculation that this closure was accidental would cause?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 02:39 PM

Shambles - fellow posters are not intentionally withholding anything from you - Joe has told you all he is PERMITTED to tell you - he has told you this!!! The parameters of what Joe (or the other administrators) is permitted to tell you are not set by fellow posters or by the 'administrators' but by Max. You have been directed to contact Max if you seek further info and, presumably, he will make a decision as to whether or not to let you have that additional info. If ge doesn't, I don't know what you will do... (I actually suspect that you have already asked him, but have gotten no further and are now trying to wrangle it out of one of the administrators by sheer persistence! ...but that is just me and my cynical way of thinking...)

Now, as I truly believe that you are quite an intelligent bloke, if a little nitpicky (you wouldn't last a week living with me, believe me!!) please tell me if there is anything in the above post that you do not understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 08:16 AM

Three of my recent thread titles have had changes imposed upon them -for reasons of clarity - when there were many more unclear thread titles than these – which escaped any imposition.

And Closing threads was by moved by Joe Offer to the BS section – was closed by some unknown fellow poster for reasons that were unclear and judged then by Joe Offer to be wrong or possibly accidental – when he re-opened it.

Joe Offer later imposed closure for a second time on equally questionable grounds and that thread remains closed.

The circumstances of the first closure have no been established but the answer to the question of whether this was accidental – appears to be thought to be too harmful for our forum to be informed.

What possible harm to ur forum do you consider the provision of this information would do? Or would you consider that it does our forum more harm for some of our fellow posters to intentionally withold it?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 08:06 AM

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=84724&messages=32

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 07:39 AM

Oh and repetitive.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 07:30 AM

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

Posters like me - who do NOT post to only to make abusive personal attacks, NOR post only to call fellow posters names, nor post only to threaten them, NOR post only to hold public conversations about their fellow posters etc– will NEVER be a problem on our forum.

So where are the grounds for the special treatment that my posts now receive and why should my posts and words be subject to ANY imposed editing action on our forum?

Especially when those who do post only to make abusive personal attacks, AND post only to call fellow posters names, AND post only to threaten them, AND post only to hold public conversations about their fellow posters etc – are seemingly thought not to be a problem and are not subject to any imposed editing action?

I am not the only poster to have been concerned about this and think it unfair....


http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1499823

I agree with both the preceeding guests, I have only been around for about 4 years, but in that time I've seen people condemned and castigated for a lot less the Martin Gibson got away with. I was disappointed that Joe Offer seemed to excuse him while on the other hand crossing swords with The Shambles over much less offensive postings. I also found it funny that a lot of people seemed to excuse Martin's behaviour on the grounds that he was pretty knowledgable on some aspects of folk music, and anyway he was being rude mostly below the line, which some seem to regard as 'beyond the pale' anyway. That's a bit like saying you excuse Hitler because he was good with kids. As has been said MG should have been curbed long before he got to be the problem he has to quite a few people, and he did show up a weakness in the policing of this forum that I love.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 10:29 AM

You forgot pompous!
G.