BS: Opening threads - a debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 09:39 AM

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 07:36 AM

Perhaps it is time concepts like declations of war on our forum can be seen for the plain silliness they are and reactions to posts can be allowed to return to being proportionate? Addressing what is said - rather than who may be saying it or making asumptions about their motivation?

'Addressing what is said' Roger, you ought to practice what you preach sonny. Your foot must be like a colander the amount of times you shoot yourself in it.
Go find another site.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 06:47 AM

Good job I didn't mention the dirty knife

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.

Perhaps it is time concepts like declations of war on our forum can be seen for the plain silliness they are and reactions to posts can be allowed to return to being proportionate? Addressing what is said - rather than who may be saying it or making asumptions about their motivation?

The attempt (by a certain few of my fellow posters) to use such a silly concept as an excuse and justification for calling certain of their fellow posters names and making abusive personal attacks and to encourage others to follow suit -is very sad. For the concept of declaration of personal wars on our forum is too juvunile for serious consideration - for it is everyone who loses in any war.

All that certain posters are repeatedly posting here to express their frustration at - is fellow posters expressing and evidencing a view that may be different to their own. Rather responding to what is said or simply ignoring it.

This on a discussion forum set-up for exactly that purpose. An exchange of views can surely still be undertaken on our forum without any need to resort to the sort of personal judgements of fellow posters by fellow posters evidenced here and seemingly now thought to be acceptable? In fact certain of these posters seem to think - and are perhaps encouraged to think - that they should not only post to make (increasingly) abusive personal attacks but that they can at the same time retain the moral high-ground.   

There now appears to be a complete misunderstanding of what should be made public on a discussion forum and what should be conveyed via PMs. Those who have been posting for a long time and who should know better – also seem confused about this and do not set a very good example.

Making personal judgements to or about and having conversations about fellow posters on a public discussion forum is not what its purpose is. What is said in the thread about the issue concerned is what is important – NOT who may be saying it or how one poster may judge another's worth. The most effective judgement of a contribution that you may not approve of - is to ignore it.

Personal messages are the correct medium for any personal exchanges and not for inflicting on the rest of our forum.

It has taken a long time for some to accept that the only postings they have any real control over - is their own. But some have finally grasped this concept but have not been too successful in convincing others. I may not agree with all of the following but - for I have never been a problem on our forum - but some of it is spot-on.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 04:35 AM

For the same reason as you Roger have fouled up an irrelevant thread with your narcisistic maunderings, why did you bother to open a thread about Mudcat quotations? Did you think you would find a lesson in how to post more of Joe Offers work? Once there, did you read it? I doubt it!
As I have said before, and will continue to say F**k off Roger, you may have declared war on Joe Offer and the other people who work for nothing to keep this site tidy, but I too little boy can declare war on you!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 12:23 AM

$500!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 04:41 PM

Roger - I answered that question the first time you asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 04:28 PM

Can anyone explain the apparent need now - for so many posters - to not only open a thread with a title indicating a subject that does not interest them – but to repeatedly open such threads? And not only to do this – but to post (often many times) - only to make personal judgements upon the hread and upon some of the thread's active participants?

Good job I didn't mention the dirty knife

MMario

What possible harm do you consider the provision of this information to our forum would do?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 04:24 PM

I was going to make a cheap shot here comparing the Shambles actions on this and similar threads to my 3 year old great neice - but decided not to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 04:19 PM

'Spaw!

Santa Claus probably already knows!

For as the song says:


He knows if you've been bad or good

Maybe the Shambles should write a letter to the North Pole? Santa could probably answer his questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 04:18 PM

The cook comes in; he is very big and comes a meat cleaver. Cook (shouting) You bastards! You vicious, heartless bastards! Look what you've done to him! He's worked his fingers to the bone to make this place what it is, and you come in with your petty feeble quibbling and you grind him into the dirt, this fine, honourable man, whose boots you are not worthy to kiss. Oh... it makes me mad... mad! (slams cleaver into the table)

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 04:07 PM

The idea of intentionally posting to change the intended subject of a thread is one that is ...
In my opinion - ... not acceptable. (Shambles)

Interesting.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 03:46 PM

I don't think he cares either. He apparently just wants to cause a stink and force things to be done his way.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 03:39 PM

Roger you are gradually working your way to the stage where the peeps who run this forum will tell the whole population of Timbuctoo before they tell you, and do you know why? Because you're a f***ing boring repetitive self obsessed tosser that's why!!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 03:35 PM

Does anyone on the forum other than The Shambles CARE ?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 03:27 PM

You have no need to know. I have no need to know. Mario has no need to know. Santa Claus has no need to know.

How would knowing benefit the forum?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 03:19 PM

It's available from MAX - who has requested it be dealt with off-forum.

MMario -

Where has Max ever stated on our forum that the answer to such a question as this one should be dealt with off-forum?

What would be gained by our forum by such a measure - even if Max had ever stated such a thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 03:05 PM

You have no need to know.....period. I really wish that in this one case, Mudcat functioned like the rest of the internet forums and Shambles would be flushed into the ether.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 03:04 PM

??

the information isn't *AVAILABLE* from the people on the forum. It's available from MAX - who has requested it be dealt with off-forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 03:00 PM

MMario

What possible harm do you consider the provision of this information to our forum would do?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 02:58 PM

Does this mean you have asked Max?


Because sure as hell you ain't gonna get an answer on the forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 02:53 PM

If you went to your local council office and asked a question re: a regulation and they informed you they were not allowed to give you the information - it could only be provided by a personal visit to the regional office - would you continue to walk into the local office daily demanding an answer?

MMario - If you didn't get an answer from either place - would you just give-up? And if you decided not to - would you take any notice of a third party who advised you to give-up?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 01:09 PM

Roger why did you sub-title this thread 'A debate'? You don't debate, you don't answer anybodies points, you send rude PMs to people rather than answer them on an open forum, you just cut paste cut paste cut paste cut paste cut paste cut paste, ad nauseam.
F off Roger, go find another forum that will put up with your nit picking crap!!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 11:37 AM

Shambles, you are the Poster child for the group of Catters that want more moderator control on this forum.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 11:14 AM

Mama, why can't I get an icecream?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:38 AM

I haven't the foggiest idea. However - As Joe has informed you multiple times already - he has given you all the information he is at liverty to provide. In order to obtain more you must contact Max off forum. How much clearer can it be to you?

If you went to your local council office and asked a question re: a regulation and they informed you they were not allowed to give you the information - it could only be provided by a personal visit to the regional office - would you continue to walk into the local office daily demanding an answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:34 AM

MMario

What possible harm do you consider the provision of this information to our forum would do?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:29 AM

Joe said: "I've told you all I'm at liberty to say about the incident "

this is pretty clear-cut. Now, on the matter of the mudcat, the forum, etc - thee only one I know of that gives direction to Joe that might constrain him is Max. Joe then states:

If you'd like to request a further explanation from Max, be sure to explain to him what good it will do for you and others to know who closed that thread and why.

to me this implies 2 things.

1) Max told Joe not to give you any further information.
2) Max doesn't consider it any of your business.

Obviously you interpret it differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:24 AM

Subject: RE: Tech: Closing threads?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 13 Sep 05 - 05:17 PM

But I still don't know who closed this thread, and I was mad as hell at the person who did it, and if I found out who did it, I was gonna kick butt. But of course, it could have been Joe Offer that closed the thread inadvertantly, and kicking HIS butt could cause problems that even his wife the chiropractor couldn't fix.
>Snip<

Was this first closure in fact an accident?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:19 AM

Shambles - Joe has given you a perfectly clear, unambiguous answer to your question. He has also informed you that in order to get further information you must contact Max off-forum. which part of the latter instruction don't you understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:15 AM

Shambles, I've told you all I'm at liberty to say about the incident in which the "closing threads" thread was closed for a few hours in the middle of the night. If you'd like to request a further explanation from Max, be sure to explain to him what good it will do for you and others to know who closed that thread and why.

I have already done this but now that that the circumstances have been established - can it be explained why should it be thought problem for our forum to also be finally informed if a thread on our forum was closed accidently or intentionally? For what possible harm could the provision of this information to our forum do?

It may be irritating for some posters to see a perfectly valid question repeatedly asked. As no one is forcing anyone to open this thread - that problem is easily solved by them not opening it.

It is just as irritating for others to see a perfectly valid question repeatly NOT answered and it is this refusal to answer - that results in others being irritated by constantly seeing the question.

It may now be thought FORBIDDEN to provide our forum with this answer - but it is not (yet) FORBIDDEN to ask it on our discussion forum.

The provision of a simple answer to a simple question will enable us all to move on. The refusal to provide our forum with this answer - in conjunction with attempts to minimise the incident and others to encourage the discrediting the fellow poster who is asking the question - will only give the impression that there IS something that our volunteer fellow posters wish to hide.

Joe - as it was you who first proposed the concept of an accidental closure of this thread - to our forum - perhaps it is only fair that it should be you who finally informs our forum if this was in fact the case?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 09:48 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 11:12 PM

Wesley S, I like the way you think :-)

Joe, that sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Wow, 10%!

I'M RICH! I'M RICH! (laughs maniacally)

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wesley S
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 03:12 PM

This has changed from a debate to a rant. Can this thread be retitled to "Opening threads - a rant" for the purposes of clarity ?

I'll let the clones decide if "in the UK" needs to be added also.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:57 PM

Jenny, you're doing a great job of keeping track of the Shambles Quote Bill. If you'd like to keep the job, I'll give you ten percent of whatever you collect. The rest goes to support Mudcat.

Shambles, I've told you all I'm at liberty to say about the incident in which the "closing threads" thread was closed for a few hours in the middle of the night. If you'd like to request a further explanation from Max, be sure to explain to him what good it will do for you and others to know who closed that thread and why.

Usual procedures were followed. I reviewed the action, found it to be an unnecessary closing, and countermanded it. I didn't find out who did it and why until yesterday, but that's neither here nor there. I think that's all you need to know, and I fail to see how you could use additional information for anything other than causing a Big Stink about it. Big Stinks are usually counterproductive, not to mention the fact that they're downright unfriendly.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:16 PM

Oooooooooooooooooo, so you want to know if it was closed intentionally???? Well, hell, why didn't you say so in the first place! I'll tell ya, this beatin around the bush ain't gonna getcha nowhere! But since I have ESP and can predict what some people can say, let me give this a shot...mmmmmm, ok....I see it. Joe says that he has talked to the original Clone who closed the thread....and he got all the information he needs.....and.....uhhhh....he says that if you want to know more......uhhhhh.....you can talk to.....uh...Mix...no, uh, Tax, no...mmmmm MAX, that's it, you can talk to Max! Phew, that was tough!! But I think I got it now...

ESPseudolus

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:14 PM

$300! (and the rest)

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:11 PM

From Closing threads

And no, nobody but the responsible party can tell whether a change is intentional or inadvertant - logic should tell you that.
Joe Offer

Logic is not perhaps much in evidence on our forum now - but if it were - it should tell us that now the 'responsible party' has eventually been established - the fact of whether the closure was intentional or not - should also have been established.

Perhaps our forum can be informed if this first closure was intentional or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:06 PM

gee - why don't you ask Max, as Joe told you you needed to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:06 PM

100 :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Yawn
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:05 PM

Y    A    W    N   !

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 02:01 PM

You will see from the following Closing threads that it was not thought to be a problem for Joe Offer to suggest and speculate that this closure may have been accidental and that he himself may have unknowingly closed it.

Now that that the circumstances have been established - why should it be thought problem for our forum to be finally informed if a thread on our forum was closed accidently or intentionally?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Yawn
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:57 PM

1. You've already been given the answer, many times.

2. Even if you hadn't been, you don't have the right to demand an answer anyway.

But you already know that, don't you.

What you don't seem to get is that no amount of passive-aggressive bullying is going to make anyone cave in just to shut you up.

Y

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:49 PM

No,Roger,I am expecting you to act like a rational being and accept the facts as stated; that Joe has provided what information he will provide you and that any more information will require that you contact Max off forum.

Joe is under NO obligation whatsoever to furnish you with ANY information (nor is Max for that matter).

I also have to wonder why "a totally honest answer has been provided " is expected when you continually twist and distort the truth in the attempt to validate your agenda - and have yet to apologize for a single one of your mis-qoutes, qoutes out of context etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:43 PM

Joe answered your questions. He also informed you that if you needed more information you could PM Max. Why is it that you apparently refuse to do so. It is the ONLY way you will get the info.

MMario are you seriously asking our forum to consider that a totally honest answer has been provided to the simple question of whether a thread's imposed closure was intentional?

We are informed that the answer to who was responsible for the closure has eventually been established - so why is it a problem for our forum to be finally informed if a thread on our forum was closed accidently or intentionally?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:14 PM

the "many remaining sensible posters" - that would be the two - or is it three - that have responded favorurably to your threads?

Joe answered your questions. He also informed you that if you needed more information you could PM Max. Why is it that you apparently refuse to do so. It is the ONLY way you will get the info.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:11 PM

Was it ever established - that the first time that Closing threads was (in Joe Offer's judgement) wrongly closed - it was done so unintentionally - as the first so-called 'honest' answer to our forum implied?

It will be clear to the many remaining sensible posters - that our forum's current editing set-up is not open, fair or accountable but has a built-in secrecy. Is this heavy-handed approach really proportionate or needed?

The requirement for our volunteer fellow posters to remain anonymous - seemingly at all costs - makes even supplying our forum with the totally honest answers to a fairly simply question (like the one above) - impossible. Which makes it look as if there really is something to hide and where it is impossible to defend any accusation of impartiality in these editing actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 01:10 PM

Dear GawdinEvvin, I cannot believe this dialogue is still goingt on!!! ROFLMAO.

Sham, aincha got nuffin better to do? Couldn't you go build an outhouse or sumpn?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 12:59 PM

OK, Shambles, this is serious. We're talking big money here. My messages are my creation, and I have a right to them. Just as you as a poster have a right to your messages, I have a right to mine. That right does not extend to thread titles that show up as an index on the Forum Menu, but it does cover the text of messages.

You have ranted for years how about how the words of yourself and your "fellow posters" should be sacrosanct, and I agree with that. Well, MY words are sacrosanct, too; and I do not want you plagiarizing them any more. My fee for each quote is $100, payable in advance of any use of my words.

Pay up, or shut up!!

-Joe Offer, the owner of his own words-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 10:34 AM

...had the dream again, It was Spaw...he kept making me say, "I can't respect any Forum that would have me as a poster"...it was ugly...


Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Sep 05 - 07:21 AM

I sit here desperately trying to think of a way you could be a bigger asshole Shambles, but I just can't do it.

What's with this freedom of speech bullshit? This is the internet numbnuts! There is no law of free speech on the net, something you'd know if you went anywhere else besides here at the 'Cat. Most sites would have banned your simple ass ages ago and eradicated all of your precious words from their threads.

Shambles says:"It would appear that the need to protect our few obviously out-of-control, anonymous volunteer fellow posters from any embarrassment on our forum - is now more important than accountability and the freedom of expression of all contributors."

Try to get this through the mush that is all that remains of your brain. A site owner chooses the people who are to assist in the daily workings of the website, generally known as Moderators. Moderators are almost always anonymous and use another screen name when performing their duties. The reason is that the site owner takes all responsibility for their actions and all complaints about them should be done by PM with the owner. THAT is the way things function at larger forums and Mudcat qualifies as a large forum. YOU have no reason to know who they are, simply direct complaints to the site owner. At most places, anyone even beginning to launch into a diatribe against a Mod would be banned, at least temporarily, from the forum and the thread deleted. Mudcat tries to be more open and free than most other places and for that you need to say a prayer of thanks. But YOU have no reason to know who did what and when. All you need to know is that if you have a complaint you need to take it to Max via PM.

While I'm at it, I am NOT a "fellow poster" of yours. I try to select even casual acquaintenances who are free of the more serious mental problems and whatever ails your sorry ass is no small thing.

Spaw