In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 09:12 AM

Are you saying that Joe Offer's view is not the majority view?

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: MMario
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 08:50 AM

I would say it is a forum for the invited public to do what they wish - WITHIN THE LIMITS SET BY MAX. Max has chosen to set and enforce those limits via proxy. His site. His choice.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 08:47 AM

That is what Joe Offer tells us is the majority view.

Mmario - If you think that it is not the majority view then please say so - or if you see alternatives - perhaps you can say what they are?

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: MMario
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 08:38 AM

those are not the only alternatives - nor are they even the most likely alternatives.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 08:21 AM

I think the majority of us see Mudcat as primarily a place that is oriented toward the reader, rather than toward the person who furnishes information. As such, Mudcat should make the priorities of the readers its primary consideration.

The above is now Joe Offer's view - is it in fact - now the majority view - as claimed?

Or is the majority view - that as far as possible - everyone should be given equal consideration and receive equal treatment?

I would suggest the following to be the question for open debate:

Is our forum primarily for the invited public to do as THEY wish - with the aspects that THEY prefer- or primarily for some volunteer fellow posters to impose their prefrences upon those wishes?

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 07:27 AM

The following from The Mudcat Songbook.

We're Alright Jack by The Shambles

The Shambles' Comments: The thinking behind the song is fairly simple. It could be expressed as 'put up or shut up'. I can understand why an individual would not wish to get actively involved in a cause or campaign. The choice is theirs. There is only so much time and one would soon be worn out if you were not selective in where you placed your limited energy. What I don't understand is why some people, who maybe generally in favour of the overall objective and who recognise the scale of the problem, are motivated to spend their time and energy to publicly place some nit-picking criticism of the methods that are being used by those who are actively involved.

Doing this without making any positive alternative suggestions or accepting that others may not have the luxury of choosing if they wish to be actively involved. The original criticisms are usually justified by a claim that the methods used are counter-productive and/or risk making the situation worse. Not recognising that for a victim, things could not get much worse or that expressing these negative criticisms is the most counter-productive action and risks diverting attention away from the real problem.

I possibly do understand why this is done, I do not however understand why this is considered to be a respectable position? Or why when such negative views are expressed, these are then followed with 'sheep-like' agreement from others? Or are expressed, because it is felt to be expressing a collective, if undemonstrated view or feeling? No one is above criticism or above making mistakes but are there not better ways of dealing with this, ones that do not risk confusing the issue or diluting the strength of the message? This song reflects my personal experiences with the Public Entertainment Licensing issue, over the past 2 years, but can be applied to many wider issues. An obvious example is the present situation with Iraq.

We're alright Jack, so don't bother us
It may affect us too, if you go kicking up a fuss
I can see you are wounded
Not in the best of health
But we all agree, you must have brought it on yourself

Am I not entitled, just like all of you
To speak from what I see, my personal point of view?
I'll question those who try to get the problem solved
And criticise those who would get me involved

We're alright Jack, so don't bother us
It may affect us too, if you go kicking up a fuss
I can see you are wounded
Not in the best of health
But we all agree, you must have brought it on yourself

These fears of mugging are simply overblown
Didn't get mugged, when I went out alone
Ignore the statistics, ignore the traumatised
In my opinion, its over dramatised

We're alright Jack, so don't bother us
It may affect us too, if you go kicking up a fuss
I can see you are wounded
Not in the best of health
But we all agree, you must have brought it on yourself

The victims of this crime may not think I am right
Many now, if able, would not go out at night
My support may give some consolation
I'll leave them in their lonely isolation

We're alright Jack, so don't bother us
It may affect us too, if you go kicking up a fuss
I can see you are wounded
Not in the best of health
But we all agree, you must have brought it on yourself


©Roger Gall – September 2002

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 07:20 AM

So - what you are saying is that even though your complaints and issues have been responded to and answers given - you do not accept the answers - even when they agree with you (which several have) so will continue to harp and complain about the same matter repeatedly?

What I am saying is - full credit to those who have made an effort - but as very few other posters appear to be brave enough or prepared to do very much try and ensure that such unfair treatment as evidenced here - is not ever imposed upon other victims (or upon me in particular) by anonymous fellow posters - it looks as that I will just have to continue to do my best.

For there have been no answers. Just the opinions of volunteer fellow posters and blind support for an initial imposition by their number (that made the thread title factually misleading). Followed by a further needless and petty imposed change to the title of this thread.

These actions were clearly selective and unfair - to present some apology (private or public) for this and state that such things will not be repeated - is what is needed in these circumstances - if our forum is to retain any credibilty for impartiality.

In the abscence of that - trying to ensure that continuing and informed open debate of these matters on our forum - will have to suffice.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:51 AM

Amos- This rather sounds a fancy way of saying that you consider that I (and others) deserve the sort of treatment that is attempted to be justified here. I don't see that I have any more sense of self than any other posters and probably have less of this than many others - who do not have changes imposed so often on their posts.


I know that you do not; that's what I am trying to tell you -- not that you "deserve" but that, knowingly or not, you certainly do "bring about". Deserving is niot part of the equation. Causation is, however. You may not believe you have an appetite for victimization and dramatic wrongs from others, but it looks that way from here.

I do not expect you to believe that this responsibililty is your own, but I see it that way, and I would, in your shoes, look within for the answers instead of flailing endlessly in long-winded posts. Because all you have apparently accomplished on your existing operating basis is a lot of sound and fury and the persistance of your complaint.

A

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: MMario
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:48 AM

So - what you are saying is that even though your complaints and issues have been responded to and answers given - you do not accept the answers - even when they agree with you (which several have) so will continue to harp and complain about the same matter repeatedly?

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: GUEST,jOhn
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:48 AM

Shambles-SHUT UP!

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:37 AM

And he probably would - if you did as he requests and contacted him OFF-FORUM regarding it.

Max is welcome to respond to my views in any manner he choose - or not at all.

But certain volunteer fellow posters are not shy of expressing their views publicly......many posters may assume that they are the site's owner or speaking for Max.... And they may well be?

But none of this prevents anyone from publicly expressing their view on our forum - does it?

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:29 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 07:06 PM

Well, I have to say that there is value in Shambles/Roger's perspective. Most of the rest of us don't share that perspective, so it is difficult for us to understand his priorities. Shambles sees Mudcat primarily as a vehicle for self-expression, as a place for people to express their creativity and ideas and lyrics and whatnot. As such, he believes Mudcat should orient itself toward the priorities of the people who post messages. And it is true that Mudcat has been that, and has served many people very well as a means of self-expression.

I think the majority of us see Mudcat as primarily a place that is oriented toward the reader, rather than toward the person who furnishes information. As such, Mudcat should make the priorities of the readers its primary consideration. It is wonderful that so many people have furnished all this information and creativity, but the reader needs help in finding his way around this maze. That's why we index and title and organize and remove duplicates. We don't do it to offend the originator, and we have no reason to offend the originator. It's not a matter of "personal taste" - it's simply a matter of doing the best we can to help people find their way around, building a roadmap or a highway system so that people can find their way around the 1.47 million messages that have been posted here.

Roger's concerns are legitimate - but it's just a matter of choice. The general tip of the scale is that Mudcat is a reader-oriented forum that assists readers in finding information - but still does its best to respect and encourage the free expression of the people who post here.

-Joe Offer-

Can finding as too 'cumbersome' - the attempt to always contact the originator before any changes are imposed by anonymous fellow posters upon the poster's chosen thread title - really be thought of as doing the best to "respect and encourage the free expression of the people who post here."

I see our forum as primarily for the invited public to do as THEY wish - with the aspects that they prefer- not for some fellow posters to impose their prefrence upon those wishes.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: MMario
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:15 AM

And he probably would - if you did as he requests and contacted him OFF-FORUM regarding it.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 11:13 AM

However he can always tell us – if this view is wrong or has changed.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: MMario
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 10:56 AM

gee - nice fantasy you have developed there. However -what you forget is that the volunteers have been recruited and given their guidelines by MAX - which invalidates your whole theory.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 10:39 AM

Thanks for your considered reply, though. I must admit, I found it much easier to understand than some of your more convoluted ones.

Thanks too for your reasoned contribution to the debate. Time I think for a more convoluted one.

The Mudcat Forum has become many things to many people. Its strength is when it freely encourages and equally reflects all of its input.

Its weakness is that rather than accepting all these different aspects as equally valid – values judgements are now being made about which aspect are more important than others. Fellow posters are making these value judgements and not the site's owner Max - and these judgements (over seemingly every aspect) appear to be ever increasing. To the extent that it getting to appear that contributors now first requires the permission of these fellow posters.- and must only now submit any contribution in the manner and form that meets the approval of these fellow posters – or be subject to routine imposition by them (even when undertaken anonymously). This is not the welcoming view to all contributors that was once thought to be traditional on our friendly forum.

My reading of Max's words here over many years is that he sees his role on the forum as to facilitate – to provide what the forum wishes and not to judge these wishes. His own wish would probably still be to get rid of all these troublesome folkies and concentrate on blues. However he can always tell us – if this view is wrong or has changed…..I see that the role of these fellow posters should be to follow Max's lead and to facilitate – not to impose their personal judgements upon the rest of us..

When these fellow posters see their role as judges make these attempts to shape our forum by their value judgements – Max is placed in a difficult position – as he may think this IS NOW the popular view. I don't think that it is the popular view but any other view does tend to be shouted down or ignored. Possibly more on a matter of personalities than by taking a serious overview of where support for this general approach is leading. The taking of sides – is usually what happens. This is not helpful and demonstrates the deep divisions that are caused by the shaping of our forum on the judgements of only a few fellow posters. To be seen to be giving the views of these fellow posters support – could be thought a way to ensure that any imposition would always be made upon the contributions of others……..?

The traditional ethos of our forum that - all animals are equal is compromised by the fairly recent introduction of – some animals are more equal than others. In a purely practical sense – peace is never likely to break-out with such an ethos and our forum will just get more and more divided - if the view of those who consider themselves to be more equal – is the only view now thought to be a valid one.

The single largest value judgement by these fellow posters – made needlessly in my opinion – is that our forum is primarily some kind of research tool – and that all the other aspect of our forum are secondary, subservient and expendable to this aspect. The idea that valuable information contributed should be as easily assessable to any reader is sensible. But a further value judgement has been made – again by fellow posters that the rights of our forum's readers – are secondary to the right of its contributors to say what they wish in their own words. That changes to the words of contributors will now be routinely imposed upon them – without the contributor's knowledge or permission – for the purposes of (manual) 'indexing'.

As our forum's readers and writers are one and the same – it would not seem sensible to me - to place the requirements one over the other. But that is what is now argued by these fellow posters. My view is that if these fellow posters manage (by this routine imposition) to inhibit contributors (in any way) there is nothing (new) going to be contributed - for anyone to later read.

This brings us to the seeming need for these fellow poster to be feel qualified to judge when a thread title is wanting and for these fellow posters to impose any change upon this – without making any attempt to first obtain the originator's permission. And to their justification – that is seemingly supported by some other posters – that to always make the attempt to first contact the originator – is too 'cumbersome'.

Do you consider that this attempt to always show the correct respect to invited contributions – is ever too 'cumbersome'? If the attempt to first contact the originator is thought to be too 'cumbersome' and to inconvenience these fellow posters – perhaps you may also consider that he proposed change is not really important enough to take the risk of imposing? Every action has a reaction to it. The reaction to needless judgement and routine imposition - is unpredictable on our forum – but there will be one. If this reaction can be avoided – it is probably wise for all concerned - that it is.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 07:33 PM

Shambles, the editing policy in the FAQ has been available for quite some time now. There have been a number of istances where you harangued about "no policy stated" and then were directed to it, in the FAQ. At most forums, the FAQ or a place like it is available about all site policies-- but it's up to the members to read and inwardly digest it. ANd abide by it, or not-- always a choice open to you, as is the choice of applying that policy, to Max's duly authorized representatives.

I don't know why you insist on portraying the site volunteers as "fellow posters." They act in a specific role when they edit, not in personal mode. This is called BOUNDARIES. Example: your doctor might be your fellow drinker at a tavern, but he's not taking out your appendix at that moment in time (one hopes).

Can you not understand a simple separation of roles? Many of us have that kind of separation between various rtoles we play on our lives. This week I have a job in respite care, helping to care for a few hours each day for a man we know who had a stroke. In that capacity today, I changed his pants. I am not planning on changing them when I see him and his wife socially. See?

It's not that weird, really, if you THINK about it. And not necessarily a plot against YOU, or anyone. It's simply how Max has chosen to run his site.

I'm your fellow poster but I can't edit you. The few who can are not acting as your peer at those times, but as site personnel.

~Susan

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: Blowzabella
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 07:08 PM

No Shambles - as I said: "I'm sure he is aware of your disgruntlement, but perhaps he is waiting for you to contact him formally about it, rather than enter into discussion here?"

Clearly we won't agree on this - but I never expected that we would.
Thanks for your considered reply, though. I must admit, I found it much easier to understand than some of your more convoluted ones.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 07:01 PM

Over time there has been a needless lowering of expectations and a huge gulf in these expectations. This is not a newspaper. it is (or perhaps was) an online community of contributors who posted equally on a discussion forum open to the public.

I and I suspect others would not have first contributed to a forum where our posts were subject the imposed judgement of our fellow posters. Whose workload was thought to be the prime consideration. Especially if these fellow posters were anonymous. I use the term - our forum to show the extent that many long-term posters feel about a forum that their contributions have helped to make special and that some of our volunteers appear to wish to make ordinary - by introducing more rules than a tax office.

The concept is less that prior permission for any changes would place any sort of 'cumbersome' burden on our volunteers now. But that it is really inconceivable to many of us - that any fellow posters would really wish to ever impose their judgement - without first asking the originator.

We all did managed to create a fine and welcoming forum without all of this administration indexing- - tidying-up and most of all without any IMPOSITION - undertaken as a first option and at the slightest excuse. Followed-up usually - if anyone should not be happy with this imposition - with - 'well if you don't like it go somewhere else'. A cry taken up readily by some posters who feel that they will never themselves be the subject of such treatment.

As has been pointed-out - our forum became the special place because of Max's vision - not because of recently introduced volunteers who claim that undertaking their role properly and facilitating - is too 'cumbersome'. If these volunteers feel that doing things properly and showing respect equally to all contributors - is too taxing - yes perhaps they should un-volunteer.   

Some posters have agreed and had the courage to say that certain things - like thead titles - should be safe from imposed changes. So it must be clear that if peace is ever going to break-out - it has to be given a chance to. Some middle ground is going to have to be again found to acommodate all views...........

Blowzabella - are you another poster who feels that Max does not have access to his own website?

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: Blowzabella
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 04:46 PM

I agree, Shambles, that you have had thread titles changed and some other people hven't had them changed - yet. They might well do at some point in the future. It might well also be true that some of the volunteers have got a bit cheesed off wih you, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised by that, would you? They are only human.   

I can sympathise with you if you feel you have been unfairly treated but I cannot honestly understand how you can feel that it is reasonable for you to expect the volunteers / recruits (whatever they might be), who help to administer and tidy up this site, to contact the originator of a thread to ask if it is ok to change the title, or combine one thread with another etc. I DO think it is too cumbersome. Far too cumbersome - having to keep track of who they contacted, when. Some people post a thread and then don't log on for days apart. Should they send reminders fter a certain period has passed? These people are not employees who have eight hours a day to spend here! They are, most probably, people trying to make a living, play some music, have a family life and fit in a bit of Mudcatting!

If I was Max I would add a disclaimer along the lines of my earlier post and have done with it! It might not clear up your problems with past posts / threads but it would clarify the position in the future.
(And, in local papers, the editors GIVE submissions titles themselves - it is the same with Press Releases or letters - the writer of the piece has no say in it!)

I know that your reply will be something along the lines of 'well, if they haven't got time to do it properly they shouldn't volunteer', and that you would prefer it if there was no tidying up anyway, in case it 'censored' anything.      

I'm afraid I'm with the ones who say Take it up with Max, if you have got a problem with the way his assistants are dealing with your submissions to the site. I'm sure he is aware of your disgruntlement, but perhaps he is waiting for you to contact him formally about it, rather than enter into discussion here?

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 02:26 PM

Shambles, I am sure that you have previously had letters to newspapers edited. The letters page always carries a disclaimer which says that this can happen to correspondents submissions. Have you carried on in this way with your local press?

When you have something like this - up-front and at the beginning of any correspondence - you have the choice to contribute on this basis or not. You may also expect that such rules would apply equally to all contributors..........

There were no such disclaimers or anonymous censors and all animals were treated as equals - when I started posting here. What was there - was a mutual respect and little or no need for any imposition.

Would you agree that attempts to close and bolt a stable door are of most use when the horse is still present and are best not made by one's fellow horses.

Would you also agree that attempts to contact the originator of a thread's title before the imposition of any change by any anonymous fellow poster is now too 'cumbersome'?

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: Blowzabella
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 01:34 PM

Shambles, I am sure that you have previously had letters to newspapers edited. The letters page always carries a disclaimer which says that this can happen to correspondents submissions. Have you carried on in this way with your local press?

If so, I'll bet they love it when another letter from you comes into the office....

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 12:39 PM

It so happened that this came out today. Not describing anyone in particular (perhaps me more than anyone else), but I dedicate it to the most frequent poster of this thread.:

Grumpy Old Man

In photographs I am the one who constantly refuses to say "cheese"
My stare is colder than the deepest freeze
My face I will not crease
And friends I used to have a few, but now they're getting fewer every year
And nobody now wants to lend an ear
Afraid of what they'll hear
In any social gathering I have the corner seat
To find a fault in everyone it is my biggest treat
On everything under the sun opinions I excrete

But I'm proud - To be a grumpy old man
Yes I'm proud - To be a grumpy old man
Don't try to explain 'cause I don't want to understand
I'm just proud - To be a grumpy old man.

The youngsters don't know anything and most of them don't even know they're born
The future of mankind I like to mourn
They all deserve my scorn
They speak in riddles and cliches and any advice they're given they reject
Their manners and appearance they neglect
They never show respect
They have no conversation, they all just seem to spit
Their humour is despicable, they are devoid of wit
And just the other day a little brat called me a tit

But I'm proud - To be a grumpy old man
Yes I'm proud - To be a grumpy old man
Don't try to explain 'cause I don't want to understand
I'm just proud - To be a grumpy old man.

I'd go abroad on holiday but there's too many foreigners out there
For strange foods and habits I don't care
So I travel in my chair
My hand on the TV control I scan through all the channels in their turn
Sometimes the TV I want to burn
Such rubbish that they churn
No cultured programmes anywhere, they only feed us pap
With perverts and celebrities that talk a lot of crap
If I could put them on my knee I'd take to them my strap

Because I'm proud - To be a grumpy old man
Yes I'm proud - To be a grumpy old man
Don't try to explain 'cause I don't want to understand
I'm just proud - To be a grumpy old man.

I have no pleasures left in life but pointing out to others that they're wrong
And everywhere I sing the same old song
And nowhere I belong
I was once young and fanciful before these wrinkles grew upon my brow
An angry youth I was, I will allow
But I'm just angry now
You say it may be jealousy that makes me blow my top
My age and experience that I would gladly swap
But I am too old to learn now, and I'll moan until I drop

And I'll be proud - To be a grumpy old man
Yes I'm proud - To be a grumpy old man
Don't try to explain 'cause I don't want to understand
I'm just proud - To be a grumpy old man.

(Closes to the strains of "If I had a hammer...")

(C)Copyright 2005 George Papavgeris

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 12:29 PM

So, Shambles, nice to see that you are not above raking up things already discussed and arguments already countered, as "character witnesses" to devalue posts or opinions you dislike. What a sweet, democratic, open-minded, non-bullying, non-judgmental, non-character-assassinating thing to do. You hypocritical sod, you gave me a laugh, bless you.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 09:32 AM

Just to save everyone repeating their argument for the 17^th time I refer all readers to the first 20 posts, just read those and then ,er, read them again and then well read them again, if you're still not convinced one way or t'other, you've guessed it, read them again, if that doesn't work read them once more, or twice more after which you can read them again and then,er, read them again and then well read them again, if you're still not convinced one way or t'other, you've guessed it, read them again, if that doesn't work read them once more, or twice more after which you can read them again and then,er, read them again and then well read them again, if you're still not convinced one way or t'other, you've guessed it, read them again, if that doesn't work read them once more, or twice more after which you can read them again and then,er, read them again and then well read them again, if you're still not convinced one way or t'other, you've guessed it, read them again, if that doesn't work read them once more, or twice more after which you can read them again and then

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 09:23 AM

ALL their work is subject to review and can be reversed should Max see fit. That is the way it works. That is the way Max has set it up and *wants* it to work.

My understanding is that Max would wish that all contributors would be seen to be treated fairly and our volunteers should only faciltate this.

My understanding differs from yours so perhaps Max will tell us his views?

But are you serously suggesting - (despite the defence and justification given here) - that Max would consider the current examples here - are the best examples of fair and equal treatment?

They are personly motivated, petty and plainly not best examples of equal treatment - and to defend them as if they were - does imeasurable damage to the crediblty of our forum - which we should be showing our loyality and commitment to.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: MMario
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 09:07 AM

Roger - I have had my thread titles changed - I've had my posts deleted. I will admit that to my knowledge I haven't had a thread I started closed.

Joe, the clones, and their previous incarnation - the mud-elves - do their job.

ALL their work is subject to review and can be reversed should Max see fit. That is the way it works. That is the way Max has set it up and *wants* it to work.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 08:51 AM

The views of those who would always consider their contributions to be safe from imposed actions and why they would consider any suggested measure to prevent imposed action upon others would be thought too 'cumbersome' for our volunteers - should rather be seen in that light.

In the case of BillD (and some others) – they would think their contributions safe - no matter how abusive their posts may be.

And in the case of El Greko - despite the fact that they created a bogus thread and a bogus identity (Xander) in order to fool others and argue with themselves. created purely for a April fool prank (in March) ? – You judge....

Mudcat censorship a proposal A thread that remains open……..when this one Censorship on Mudcat   has been closed.

The reasons why certain posters would feel free now - from imposed action that others receive (and are thought by them to somehow deserve) and how you too can ensure your freedom on our forum from such actions – is something that could be explained? If it really wasn't sadly so self-evident………

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 02 Aug 05 - 12:33 AM

Agree

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 11:01 PM

"... Is it really too 'cumbersome' for volunteers to always consult with the originator before imposing any changes to the titles of threads?"

oh, yes...I'd think so...

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 09:15 PM

Exactly, Amos. The "facts" do not support the conclusions. Especially, to my mind, to claim that editorial changes effected by volunteers appointed by Max is a claim to superiority by those volunteers is specious.

So that is OK then - there is NO problem to address.......!
That you may consider the conclusions are not supported by the facts - does not mean that the facts are not still the facts and that they can then be ignored. The treatment of my contributions is a fact evidenced here - you seem content that this special treatment is somehow deserved and open support of this unfair treatment is somehow excusable.

I don't feel qualified to sit in judgement and impose my personal views upon the freely invited contributions of my fellow posters without their knowledge or permission. Those that do feel themselves qualified to place themselves in this position - would I suggest feel themselves superior to me (and the rest of us lesser mortals).

Perhaps MMario you could try seeing it NOT from the position of the volunteers - but from the position of their victims?

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 08:57 PM

I think there are real and identifiable reasons why your interactions with this system have proven to be so strangely and dramatically unfortunate, but the answer does NOT lie in the malevolence of others, or even in their negligence, but in your own appetite for the dramatic and unfortunate.

Amos- This rather sounds a fancy way of saying that you consider that I (and others) deserve the sort of treatment that is attempted to be justified here. I don't see that I have any more sense of self than any other posters and probably have less of this than many others - who do not have changes imposed so often on their posts.

I also don't see that the answer lies with my perception - rather than the reality. The reality remains that these judgement and changes have in fact been imposed on my contributions (and others) but not on yours. I make no claim for the malevolence or negilgence of others - these are not my words of explanation....However, I strongly feel that some explanation - or change - is required. This messenger has been shot so many times - it would be nice if the message was actually addresed - rather than just keep on shooting the messenger .

For it would be interesting if some attempt could be made for posters to address the issue. Which is not whether The Shambles is a nice bloke or not - the issue is one of: - Is it really too 'cumbersome' for volunteers to always consult with the originator before imposing any changes to the titles of threads?

I am sorry if I don't agree with your judgement that my contributions over many years have been unfortunate in any way. But perhaps judgement upon the worth of fellow posters is not really what our forum is for? I am very pround that I (and others) have made a very positive part in making our forum a special place. I am pleased that some of the threads that I started - like the 'jingles' and the 'busking is begging' threads are still being posted to. I am just as pleased to see that they still manage seem to have their original titles.....So far...*Smiles*

I intend to try and continue to post openly. Whatever special treatment you judge my contributions deserve but yours do not - from those fellow posters who remain anonymous. I would be grateful for any help in trying to ensure that my contributions (and those of others) are treated - by those who now feel qualified to judge us - the same as yours.... Equally.

As for this being my lone battle. You may agree that the odds are so stacked that a battle is hardly the right word? The word for this is a masacre... An honest and open debate debate among equals - is what is requested an long overdue.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 07:08 PM

Is it a fact that despite being subject to many of these abusive personal attacks and much provocation - that this poster has always refused to respond in kind?

I see little choice but to carry on moderately expressing and evidencing my view - and probably being subject to yet more personal abuse for doing so - if that is what it takes......

In view of The Shambles above claims; that he is innofensive, and doesn't respond with personal abuse, I would remind him of a PM he sent 12 Dec 2002 02:37 PM to myself.

Whilst I thought it very abusive, and totally unnecessary, I merely referred it to Joe. I have never quoted it, and would rather not, as it is not the sort of language I customarily use.

However, if The Shambles doth protest too much....

Nigel

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: MMario
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 03:20 PM

Exactly, Amos. The "facts" do not support the conclusions. Especially, to my mind, to claim that editorial changes effected by volunteers appointed by Max is a claim to superiority by those volunteers is specious.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: Amos
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 03:15 PM

I believe that what is misplaced, Roger, is your obdurate ignoral of WHY these sad things happen to you and a few others.

I submit for reflection that it might have something to do with your own misplaced preoccupation with self.

It appears to me, FWIW, that while you take the position of fighting for the common good and answering to a higher call, the reality of it is that your interest lies within the perimeter of your own mind, not in fact with the best balance of operation for the community at large.

I do not mean this as abusive, although I suppose you can take it as such if you so choose. But seriously, the larger matrix of interactions amongst members, as far as I can see, is as removed from your lonely battle as the real world is removed from the belief that the heavens revolve around the earth -- it may sound like a nice idea, but it doesn't match up with experience.

I think there are real and identifiable reasons why your interactions with this system have proven to be so strangely and dramatically unfortunate, but the answer does NOT lie in the malevolence of others, or even in their negligence, but in your own appetite for the dramatic and unfortunate. Why you should have such an appetite is a question only you can answer, but the question lies squarely at your own feet.

This is the reason that so many voices on these several threads about you have sought to dampen your enthusiasm for carping and whinging about the Great Wrongnesses of the Cat.

And that, sir, is all I have to say on the matter.


Amos

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 03:00 PM

Now that some individuals claim that others consider themselves to be superior and persist in repeatedly stating this over and over with no evidence to support their claim there will be little chance of this ever happening.

I am not sure how much more evidence is really needed to satisfy some posters. Perhaps as long as it does not happen to them and always happens to others - nothing will?

Is it a fact that changes have been imposed here - to not just one but two of my thread titles and imposed by two different volunteers (one still remaining anonymous - the other less so)?

Is it a fact that this poster is probably alone in having a thread that they originated - closed by Joe Offer - not only once but twice?

Is it a fact that this poster has provided the evidence here yet again of abusive personal attacks from Joe Offer - where he incites others to do the same?

Is it a fact that despite being subject to many of these abusive personal attacks and much provocation - that this poster has always refused to respond in kind?

I see little choice but to carry on moderately expressing and evidencing my view - and probably being subject to yet more personal abuse for doing so - if that is what it takes......

MMario - be bored with it ignore it - if you think you must but please do not claim there is no supporting evidence. Your loyality is recognised - but do you think that it may be looking a little mis-placed?

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: MMario
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 12:17 PM

When all animals were seen to be equal on our forum there was always a chance of serenity or a chance of peace breaking-out. Now that some animals consider themselves themselves more equal than others and openly flaunt this - there will be little chance of this ever happening

I submit that the above is about as factual as the following:

When all animals were seen to be equal on our forum there was very little chance of serenity or peace breaking out because basically most of the animals here are a cantakerous lot. Now that some individuals claim that others consider themselves to be superior and persist in repeatedly stating this over and over with no evidence to support their claim there will be little chance of this ever happening.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Aug 05 - 11:54 AM

There is little hope of much serenity. Just sitting by and watching others struggle - is not serenity... It is something quite different.

When all animals were seen to be equal on our forum there was always a chance of serenity or a chance of peace breaking-out. Now that some animals consider themselves themselves more equal than others and openly flaunt this - there will be little chance of this ever happening.

Unless this situation is addressed.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 03:11 PM

Is this 'Reinhold' bloke - one of our anonymous volunteers?

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 10:48 AM

He is just copying our Wesley S....

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: freda underhill
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 10:30 AM

Serenity Prayer - By Reinhold Niebuhr

God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change
Courage to change the things I can,
Wisdom to know the difference,
Living one day at a time,
Enjoying one moment at a time,
Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace,
Taking as Jesus did this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it.
Trusting that you will make all things right
If I surrender to your will.
So that I might be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with you forever in the next.
          Amen

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 10:18 AM

Wesley S has said it better.

Grant our members and guests the serenity to accept the things they cannot change - the courage to change the things they can - and the wisdom to realise that this is a forum open to the public and that they have no control over the posts and ideas of others

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: freda underhill
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 09:59 AM

from the control link..

An important message is that the more you let go of the control over the people, places, and things in your life, the more control in your personal life you will gain. In order to let go of control over others, you must first be convinced that they are the uncontrollables and unchangeables in your life and that the only one you can control and change is yourself.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 09:51 AM

Joe Offer said.

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.

Perhaps it can finally be accepted that whatever its intention and whatever defence is made for it - this imposed change (in isolation) -IS factually incorrect, DOES not clarify anything and is actually misleading people into thinking that the originator was as mis-informed as our volunteers and their imposed judgement upon fellow posters - without their knowledge or permission - have quite needlessly been proved to be?

Perhaps it can be finally accepted - that it only remains the opinion of one fellow poster - that - it doesn't seem to make a whole hell of a lot of difference. It quite obviously does make a big difference to those it directly affects. Perhaps such judgements can be left to them?

Will our volunteers now respect the fact that the originator will probably always be better informed on the thread's subject and how they choose to title it? And if they do not prove to be - the simple courtesy of always ensuring the originator is first consulted - will make sure that our forum always reflects and continues to be shaped by the wishes of all its contributors - rather than the imposed judgement of a few anonymous volunteers?

The subsequent imposition of this current thread's title and it manner - rather speaks for itself. Perhaps some assurances will be given that these important lessons have finally been learned and that these actions and the manner of their defence of them shown in this thread will never be repeated?

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 08:41 AM

Subject: RE: Minister say's jamming OK in UK
From: Jim McLean - PM
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 07:37 AM

Am I correct in assuming this new licensing act only applies to England and Wales and not the UK?

From the following thread.

Minister says jamming is OK in the UK

I am not one to say 'I told you' - so I won't......*Smiles*

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: GUEST,thoughtful
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 08:10 AM

This site is very interesting and worth a look. Sometimes the need for control feels political, when it can be very personal. The following link is of interest - anyone can learn more from examining these issues.

the need to control

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 06:19 AM

Please bear also in mind that in a debate, volume of statements is not what wins it, but quality.

Please bear in mind that despite request for a debate - that what this thead contiues to be is a battle. With many contributions making no reference to the issue at all.

I am not sure if debates are ever won - however, they may be settled.

Battles however are won - but not decided on quality - the winners are usually just the stronger party. But in any war - everyone loses.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 06:10 AM

200

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 06:09 AM

199

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jul 05 - 06:06 AM

I just thought of a parallel, from the world of politics. Say a journalist asks a question of Bush or Blair publicly - you'd hardly expect the response to be in a private letter!

It rather depends on what is aked of Mr Blair etc. If he is asked publicly to answer what he may consider to be a side issue or in particular private matter - the manner of his reply (or to reply at all) would be a matter for him.

In a case where it was demanded of him publicly to reveal if he had written privately to a third party and to explain publicly the result of that correspondence - he probably feel that he had no need to reply at all. and if another party suggested that he was wrong in this regard - he would probably tell them - with some justification - that it was none of their business.

But I am not in public office. I did as least reply to Susan's public demand for private information in the manner I felt was proper. Making public - a private exchange is something that Susan may think is acceptable - but I do not. Not doing this is a convention that most of us do respect. However, there is no convention that precludes private contact via PMs here - unless the poster expressly wishes it (prefably not in public)- then it should be respected.

Max has provided us with a number of way to communicate and not all are used correctly. The difficulty is less that public questions may be replied to privately. The problem is the opposite. Some posters now insist on carrying out purely private conversations or gossip and judgements about fellow posters in public. Or making public - what should be private demands.

This is side issue - perhaps subject for another thread (and title)? The issue remains if it really too 'cumbersome' for the orgininators of thread titles to always be consulted before any change is imposed by anonymous fellow posters?