 sj |
||
|
||
In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 23 Aug 05 - 03:10 PM bookmarked as a classic Mudcat Post. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 23 Aug 05 - 03:08 PM ah! But some of your "fellow guests" have been delegated to act for the host BY THE HOST. And you are chastizing them for doing what your host has asked them to do. |
|
Subject: (thread title change complaint) From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Aug 05 - 03:06 PM Well, let me tell you a story: Once upon a time, there was a very nice boy named Roger. At least, his mother thought he was a very nice boy. Everything went along swimmingly in Roger's life because his mother adored him. Until he went to Kindergarten. Well, actually, Kindergarten went along quite well, and Little Roger played very well with the other children, and he ended the school year with an "A" in Sandbox. And Little Roger was the Teacher's Pet, and was very loyal to his Teacher Mrs. Offer and always said nice things about her. But then in First Grade, when Mrs. Offer was still his teacher, Roger learned how to give speeches. He liked to hear himself give speeches, so he gave speeches constantly, and he began having problems. His mother still adored him and thought his speeches were wonderful, but Roger soon found that others did not adore him properly, and he became quite unhappy with their lack of deference. He simply couldn't understand why the other children didn't listen to him, and why they didn't share his opinions, and why they acted bored when he gave the same three-hour speech every day. He became especially upset when the children began to mimic and mock his speechifying. He became even more upset when Mrs. Offer asked him nicely to be quiet and give the other children time to give speeches. So Roger began acting out. He decided that the teacher, Mrs. Offer, was responsible for all of his unhappiness. Mrs. Offer was a very nice person and tried to treat all the children with equal niceness, but she did not adore little Roger. Since Mrs. Offer did not show him proper deference, little Roger decided she was nice at all, and he began to question her authority. Thirty times a day, little Roger passed notes around the class, listing out-of-context excerpts from all the things that Mrs. Offer had said over her entire career as teacher. Little Roger would get up in class and give long speeches about how the Principal, Maxine Mirror, had supreme authority in the school and certainly didn't like the dictatorial way that Mrs. Offer conducted class, and that the class certainly should not listen to anything Mrs. Offer had to say. Most of the class disagreed with Little Roger, and they spent the entire day trying to convince Roger that he was wrong. Now, there was one little girl, HappyGirl, who loved Roger and believed everything he said, and she loved to listen to his three-hour speeches. Roger thought it was very nice that HappyGirl believed in him, and this inspired him to increase the length of his speeches to four hours. As a result of this, First Grade seemed to last forever, and the children were very bored. And nobody learned Proper Grammar. And Little Roger's grammar was worst of all. As luck would have it, Mrs. Offer was promoted to Second Grade the next year, and she was given a very substantial raise in pay and a much larger classroom. And wouldn't you know it, Little Roger was promoted to Second Grade, too. Because Mrs. Offer had so much extra work, Mrs. Mirror the Principal appointed certain children to clean the blackboard and tidy up the classroom. Mrs. Mirror did not publish a list of children who were authorized to clean the blackboard, and Little Roger was very distrustful of this policy. The Blackboard Cleaners were appointed by Mrs. Mirror herself, but Little Roger found it convenient to question their Authority to Erase Blackboards. Little Roger declared that the Only True Decisions could be made by Mrs. Mirror, and that nobody could trust the Evil Mrs. Offer and the Blackboard Cleaners and their conspiracy to deprive little innocent schoolchildren of their right to Know Nothing and to speak with Improper Grammar. Furthermore, Little Roger declared that not one word should be erased from the blackboard without the permission of the person who wrote that word. And time went on, and Little Roger gave his four-hour speeches and passed thirty notes a day through the classroom all year during Second Grade, and all the children fell asleep, and still nobody learned Proper Grammar, but Mrs. Offer and everybody were promoted to Third Grade the next year. And to they all were promoted again to Fourth Grade after another year of speeches and messages about all the horrible things Mrs. Offer had done since Kindergarten. Little Roger kept talking about how wonderful and benevolent the Principal Maxine Mirror was, and Mrs. Offer often suggest that Little Roger should go to Mrs. Mirror and discuss his unhappiness. But Little Roger never spoke to Mrs. Mirror, because he was afraid that Mrs. Mirror might disagree with him. Still, he continued to make speeches about how Mrs. Mirror was truly wise and agreed with everything Little Roger said, and that Mrs. Mirror actually despised Mrs. Offer and thought that she was a horrible teacher. And finally, on the very last day of Fourth Grade, Mrs. Offer got tired of all of Little Roger's manipulation and speechifying, and she said: Shut Up, Roger, You Asshole!And she was sentenced to thirty years in prison, and there she is to this very day. End of story. No, it's not the end of the story. What happened was that Little Roger was appointed Teacher, which was a Fate Worse Than Death because HappyGirl turned on him, and made his life More Miserable Than One Could Imagine. And Mrs. Offer was very pleased that she was safely locked away in prison. And she formed a song circle with the prison guards and they spent the rest of their days singing happily away. And Mrs. Offer forgot about Proper Grammar and became the World Authority on Prison Songs and was recorded by Alan Lomax and got a pardon from the Governor and a star on the sidewalk of Hollywood Boulevard. And Mrs. Offer forgot all about Poor Little Roger. And then Mrs. Offer had a sex change operation and became Mr. Offer, and became a Forum Moderator at the Mudcat Cafe. I thought the story should have a happy ending, but I do wish that it had a happier ending for Poor Little Roger. I lied about Mrs. Offer being still in prison, and I apologize publicly for that. I apologize sincerely for all my failures, but I did try so hard to help Roger learn to speak with Proper Grammar. He learned to speak long and often, but he never did learn to speak well. And he never, ever learned the meaning of the word "succinct." Such is life. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:47 PM Yes but a guest of whom? Not of one's fellow guests. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:28 PM another fallacy used to support your view. The customer is always right. And if you do not like that fact - no one is forcing you - or any other volunteer fellow poster - to stay in the kitchen. You are not a customer. You are a guest. A pretty rude one at that. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:22 PM 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) After over 500 posting in this thread and the other one over 100, it seems YOU are the only one "upset" about such an "imposition." The customer is always right. And if you do not like that fact - no one is forcing you - or any other volunteer fellow poster - to stay in the kitchen. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:17 PM The whole of Monty Python's - Resturant Sketch can be read on the following... http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/restrant.htm Although some of the more indignant and dramatic personal judgements of me - contained in some of the posts in this thread - from the 'usual supects' are much funnier. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Aug 05 - 12:25 PM Yes, Roger, yes... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 05 - 12:07 PM Good thing I didn't say anything about the dirty knife! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Aug 05 - 12:00 PM True, Giok. I especially love his attempts at representing some sort of invisible group of dicontented members, with his constant "we" and "our" and "us". When by now we all know that he is the only one with these complaints; and that his complaint is not even an honest one, but an underhanded way of getting his own back against Joe for perceived slights of 4 years ago. So he fights on regardless. He ignores awkward questions - indeed he ignores most questions, because he is not into debating. What he is into, is asking questions with the intention of sowing doubt. He knows his problem but cannot afford to recognise it openly - that would mean invalidating 4 years' worth of bickering and even worse, it would mean having to change his opinion of his own worth. He needs to be a hero of the downtrodden, a martyr, to feel good about himself. Sad, but not unique in that. He will complain about name-calling, then hypocritically call others names. He will repeat the same questions and the same quotes, and pretend that he does not realise he is being offensive in doing so (all the while offending being what he actually intends - more hypocrisy). He pretends to be hurt by abuse and to be ever so meek himself, then PMs others to abuse them. And all the while, his true purpose (to hurt Joe) is exposed. In the end, as long as he confines his rantings to 1-2 threads, he does little damage; the only ones taking him seriously for a while are newbies, who soon enough wise up to his tricks. And the rest of the forum continues merrily, with some of us occasionally dipping in here to prod the bear and see it react. And all the time, the bear runs up and down demented, like some that you see in badly-kept zoos. Pathetic; for him and for us, if truth be told. But having tried to reason with him time and again, I cannot honestly blame those who lash out at him in their frustration. If he will not confine himself out of harm's way and keep instead posting here, he deserves all he gets. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Aug 05 - 10:09 AM Well I can always rely on Roger to give me my daily chuckle, there's never an un-dull moment while he's quoting selectively on the Mudcat. Giok. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 23 Aug 05 - 09:15 AM And whatever 'clarity' thought to be gained - not really worth the risk of upsetting anyone by its imposition? After over 500 posting in this thread and the other one over 100, it seems YOU are the only one "upset" about such an "imposition." |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 23 Aug 05 - 08:12 AM Is England no longer a part of the UK? Horrors! Why haven't we been informed of this? After all - the thread wasn't changed to say "Minister say's jamming OK in the ENTIRE UK" So your claim is invalid. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 05 - 06:02 AM You may have missed this also. Careful, Shambles. I did not call anyone names, although I did indicate that people who engaged in certain conduct might be considered such. And your frequently-quoted "pain-in-the-ass" citation referred to a person without a name, a person who preferred to be judged by actions - actions which were clearly troublesome and provocative. No doubt you will stretch and misapply my words as you so often do, but let it be noted that I named no names. I refer to conduct, not to persons. If a person's conduct fits the description, then the reader can draw his or her own conclusion. -Joe Offer- The outbursts and personal attacks upon fellow posters have now subsided and without any apology for them - our forum is now expected to simply forget these and now address the far more reasoanable tone of the following (made in a coventional posting). So, Shambles, what was the issue in this thread anyhow? If I recall, you complained because a volunteer renamed a thread from Minister say's jamming OK to Minister say's jamming OK in UK. The appropriate action would have been for you to contact me in a personal message, and then we could have discussed the matter. I would have been glad to rename the thread to UK Minister says jamming is OK, which would have been clear, precise, and grammatically and factually correct. No - it would still have been just misleading as the title currently still imposed upon it but just as importantly still credited to me as the thread's originator. If you gave the same subject to say 10 posters and asked them to provide a thread title for it - you would probably have 10 different titles. All of them (given the limitations) being just as clear and just as unclear as each other. Now if you are going to have one volunteer fellow poster imposing their judgement of their and choice of title upon every thread title - this impostion would be fair and any complaints about the titles's clarity could be addressed to this volunteer. As the current practice is not this - it is unfair and if any originator feels they may have been unfairly selected for imposition -this selected imposition only - makes any claim made about the imposition being unfair and personally motivated impossible to defend. The appropriate action as far as my personal posting policy (which appear is now placed in my FAQ) is concerned - is for my words - unless there are abusive personal attacks - name-calling or offensive language - to appear as posted. If anyone wishes to make any change to them (for clarity) they are welcome to contact me via PM and ask for for my permission to do so. Why is is the request for a any title change to be made first to the originator - only thought to be nit-picking? Is the intial action - the imposed change - not equally nit-picking? And whatever 'clarity' thought to be gained - not really worth the risk of upsetting anyone by its imposition? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:47 AM And yes, I suppose that if you badger and aggravate me long enough, I may occasionally respond with an aggravated tone. Heck, I suppose I might slip under all that aggravation once in a while and imply that you might possibly have a screw loose. I don't really think I have a reason to apologize for that. I think you have badgered and aggravated me far too long. Anyone in any postion - from shopkeeper to bank manager will be subject to requests they may not agree with - how well they perform in this position and in the how suitable they are for this position -will be judged by whether they can handle such requests without resorting to publicly giving vent to their frustrations. And unlike the examples given - everyone here has the option of responding or not. Some also insist on also having the option of posting their personal judgements (or threats) in editing comments. Any volunteer fellow poster here - who who even once responds with the abusive personal attacks and and name-calling that is the main thing these volunteers are supposed to be protecting our forum from - has set a poor example and publicly demonstrated by this alone - that they are totally unsuitable for this privileged role. Any justification for a volunteer fellow poster's lapse (even once) into setting this poor example and mounting and encouraging abusive personal attacks - that is based on a public appeal that they were provoked - is only bringing the credibilty of our forum even further into question. For how can our forum be asked to trust this volunteer's judgement? Even if the request had be a persoanal attack made in name-calling offensive language - there can be no justification for any posters to respond in kind - or even to respond at all. In this case there has never been any question that the request was made in moderate fashion. The ability to impose your personal judgement upon the words of a fellow poster is NOT a minimal ability - it is a very serious responsibilty. The exercise of this ability MUST always been seen to be impartial and not personally motivated. Our forum - including Max - who is perfectly able to read the forum he has provided for the public on his website and to respond publicly, privately or not at all as he chooses- will no doubt judge if this is the case now. Anyone who wishes to post abusive personal attacks, name-call and use offensive language to do so - are welcome (as a fellow poster) by me- to do this. I will ignore these as is my custom. However, It is not possible for me (or any other poster) to ignore these abusive personal attacks - if those mounting (and encouraging these attacks by example) also think their main contribution to the shaping of our forum is by the method of imposing their judgement and words on the contibutions of their fellow posters at the slightest excuse. And who would appear from the evidence - to be rather selective and personally motivated in their targetting. Perhaps we can all return to posting on an open, fair and equal basis once again and continue to be free to shape our forum by our contributions and not by judgements and impositions made upon them by anonymous fellow posters? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:08 AM Are you then suggesting Roger that the 'minister' mentioned in the thread title is only a minister in England? Giok [I could get good at this nit-picking thing!] |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Aug 05 - 03:41 AM You got a reasoned reply, Shambles. A long, long time ago. You just didn't like the answer you got. So, have you appealed this to Max yet? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:27 AM If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply. Susan - I did just that. Perhaps you can tell me what good this was or what effect it had? For this was before some anonymous volunteer fellow imposed the thread title change on the 'UK' thread - making it factually incorrect but still credited to me as the originator. Whatever further incorrect judgements are made by volunteer fellow posters who do not know thread subjects as well as the originator - the imposed change is not clarification - it is now more unclear to our forum's readers. If you need proof that this imposed change remains factually There is a record copied in this thread of thread from a Scottish poster pointing out that the legislation does not apply the the 'UK'. Bert a volunteer fellow poster who I did PM - does feel that he needs to resort to making abusive personal attacks upon fellow posters that he may not agree with - has posted here to totally support my request that originators should be first consulted before any change is imposed upon their thread title. His opinion does not seem to matter as Joe Offer continues to refer to 'WE' as if speaking for these volunteer fellow posters as if they were all always in total agreement with every action of Joe Offers - either as just a poster or volunteer fellow poster. What action would have prevented Joe Offer from imposing the title change upon this thread also? Or from showing any poster who expresses a public view that is different with abusive personal attacks and name-calling and permitting (or encouraging by setting this example) other posters to do the same? Things that we done some time ago cannot be undone. They can be apologised for - the lessons learned and not just allowed to carry on being repeated and attempted to be defended and justified. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: catspaw49 Date: 23 Aug 05 - 12:29 AM A screw loose? Hmmmmmm.......That could be because he has no nuts. Now if he had nuts he would PM Max with his list of 1001 complaints and maybe then he would no longer have a screw loose! Of course then he'd just complain of being screwed. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Aug 05 - 07:05 PM So, Shambles, what was the issue in this thread anyhow? If I recall, you complained because a volunteer renamed a thread from Minister say's jamming OK to Minister say's jamming OK in UK. The appropriate action would have been for you to contact me in a personal message, and then we could have discussed the matter. I would have been glad to rename the thread to UK Minister says jamming is OK, which would have been clear, precise, and grammatically and factually correct. I certainly can see that from your perspective as a citizen of the UK, the meaning of the title is clear to you (although I do not believe "say's" is correct in the UK, either). From my perspective as an American, I think of a minister as a cleric, and something needs to be added to the term for me to understand. Therefore, I approved the thread title change, to make it understandable to our worldwide readership in a way that does not change the intended meaning of the thread title. Please note that the title and the text of your messages in that particular thread were not changed in any way. That is the specific issue, and that is my specific answer. I can certainly see how you could disagree with my perspective, but that is my decision, a decision Max authorized me to make. If you disagree with that decision, you have only one remedy - you can appeal to Max. Have you done that?If you cannot address the specific issue, I cannot help you. I can't deal with all these other innuendos and accusations, because there's no specificity and no logic. And I can't and won't do anything about things that were said and done three years ago or even three months ago, so don't even bother to bring them up. Stick to the issue at hand. One other thing - if you want me to change an administrative action, you'll have much better luck if you discuss the matter with me privately. If you make an issue of editorial actions by posting your complaints in a thread, you force me to defend an action instead of allowing me to discuss and negotiate. You can say more-or-less whatever you like in your harangues, but you're not likely to get anything changed that way. And yes, I suppose that if you badger and aggravate me long enough, I may occasionally respond with an aggravated tone. Heck, I suppose I might slip under all that aggravation once in a while and imply that you might possibly have a screw loose. I don't really think I have a reason to apologize for that. I think you have badgered and aggravated me far too long. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Aug 05 - 06:32 PM We can leave our forum can judge from the evidence... "We" don't feel it IS "our" forum, nor do "we" tend to experience Mudcat from the role of its judges, nor do we look to one another's words for "evidence." "We" simply do not share your experience, Roger. I am not speaking "for" "we," but describing what I observe of "we." ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 22 Aug 05 - 03:41 PM If it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and resembles a duck to all outward appearances, there may be a remote possibility that it is a grizzly bear - but don't be surprised if most people think it's a duck and call it a duck. they would still qualify as deliberate personal attacks and name-calling I don't think so. YOu have given multiple indications of behavior that would justify any of those names as legitimate descriptions |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 22 Aug 05 - 03:35 PM You may have missed the following editing comments - as these were inserted into existing posts and do not refresh the thread. Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles - PM Date: 17 Aug 05 - 01:49 PM Do you really think that any organisation that allowed any of its representitives to personally abuse and call their customers names - like 'asshole' and 'idiot' in response to civil requests - be following organisational principles likely to enable any organisation to flourish and prosper? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I certainly did not intend to refer to anyone in particular with those terms - I referred only to those who act in such a manner. Feeling guilty, Shambles? -Joe Offer- And Careful, Shambles. I did not call anyone such names, although I did indicate that people who engaged in certain conduct might be considered such. You may stretch or misapply my words as you so often do, but I named no names. -Joe Offer- We can leave our forum can judge from the evidence......Made in these conventional posts that did refresh the thread. From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 11 Aug 05 - 03:28 PM I also find it an interesting challeng to respond to insults without resorting to insults. Although I guess I have to admit that I have sometimes given in to that temptation, I think I generally do a pretty good job of expressing myself rationally and with good humor.. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 12 Aug 05 - 03:30 PM You see, Roger, most of us are here to have a good time among friends. All of your adversarial crap is just that - adversarial crap. We volunteers do what we need to do to keep the peace and tidy things up. Nobody's out to offend your right to free speech - but if you insist on making an asshole of yourself, you're likely to be treated like an asshole. Basically, Mudcat is here for enjoyment - not for all this heavy stuff you try to lay on us. You want to play war games, and that's not what we're here for. No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems. If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something? -Joe Offer- It tells me that some animals now consider themselves to be a lot more equal than others and perhaps more entitled to have a good time than others. And that it may be a lot easier to claim that you manage to be good-humoured when you are the one imposing your judgement - than it may be for those who are being imposed upon and subject to the name-calling. The irony is that as I have never responded in kind to these abusive personal attacks and name-calling (from Joe Offer or anyone else) - there are no grounds - nor should there be any question of any of my words being subject to any imposition or for them not to appear as posted. Sadly that has not been the case......... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 22 Aug 05 - 02:57 PM If it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and resembles a duck to all outward appearances, there may be a remote possibility that it is a grizzly bear - but don't be surprised if most people think it's a duck and call it a duck. they would still qualify as deliberate personal attacks and name-calling I don't think so. YOu have given multiple indications of behavior that would justify any of those names as legitimate descriptions. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Aug 05 - 02:53 PM Here's the relevant part of what you quoted, as it ought to apply to you, Shambles: If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply. A PM. A PM.~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 22 Aug 05 - 02:48 PM Roger - first - neither of those names are particularly abusive. "If the shoe fits", etc. Mmario – To be called an idiot, an asshole or a looney (as I have recently been called on our forum by Joe Offer) may not measure quite so far up on the abusive name-calling front as some of Joe's supporters can now manage to post – without any censure. However they would still qualify as deliberate personal attacks and name-calling. But as you full well know – it is not the level of the abuse that is of most concern - when Joe Offer or any other volunteer fellow poster sets this example on our forum. [PM] Bert BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 06 Feb 05 The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply. Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it. -Joe Offer- MMarion perhaps you can tell us who now protects posters from abusive personal attacks and name-calling - when these attacks are emanating from the very volunteer fellow posters who are supposed to protect us from them? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: John MacKenzie Date: 22 Aug 05 - 02:22 PM Come on George, since when did any of Roger's responses actually address the point raised by another 'fellow poster' Giok |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Aug 05 - 01:58 PM Welkins? Where can I get them? Or have I got that wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 22 Aug 05 - 01:50 PM Roger - first - neither of those names are particularly abusive. "If the shoe fits", etc. Secondly - calling the fact that you had a song challenge NAMED as a song challenge my personal opinon doesn't change the fact that it was indeed a song challenge. How many people have to express their "personal opinon" which happens to coincide with the very definition of something, before you will concide that you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong? And insisting that Joe made changes strictly out of his own personal viewpoint and only because your opinion differs from his does not change the fact that Joe acted within the editing policy of the site owner as Joe is authorized to do. Nor does you continueing to whine that "Max can read this thread" make the FACT that he has requested that such discussions be taken off this forum any less true. Do you still deny that you misqoute and qoute out of context? I have yet to see you apologize for the examples that have been pointed out to you. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: The Shambles Date: 22 Aug 05 - 01:33 PM calling a cat a dog does not make it a dog. Denying that a cat is a cat doesn't make it a dog either. And that thread was indeed a song challenge. MMario - your personal judgement is not going to be helpful - is it really intended to be? Perhaps you will will tell me that in your judgement - my perception that the change was imposed upon the title of my thread without my knowledge or permission is also mistaken? Perhaps you will also tell me that in your judgement that it is now perfectly acceptable for Joe Offer to publicly call fellow poster's abusive names like idiot and asshole - merely because they may express on our forum - a personal view that is contrary to his personal view?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Bill D Date: 22 Aug 05 - 10:12 AM "It is my contention that it would now appear that 'our' forum has been taken over by those who may not wish to 'make it a place of combat and chaos' but who have now adopted these methods and from whom - much of the current 'nastiness' is comming from" eeek! Taken over? Funny, I must have missed the coúp. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: MMario Date: 22 Aug 05 - 09:30 AM sorry shambles - painful or not - that thread was in its essence a song challenge. That you find this hurtful or painful is your problem - but that doesn't change the fact that if you do not consider it to be a song challenge you are wrong. period. end of discussion. calling a cat a dog does not make it a dog. Denying that a cat is a cat doesn't make it a dog either. And that thread was indeed a song challenge. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Peace Date: 22 Aug 05 - 12:34 AM Time sure passes quiclky, doesn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 22 Aug 05 - 12:32 AM I'm not saying he addressed your point, Susan - but he refers to you by name (post of 21 Aug, 3:03PM). You're right, I couldn't understand to what he was referring. And his sentence that I quoted confused me further, indicating as it does a total reversal of his view on the current status of Mudcat. My head hurts! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 21 Aug 05 - 06:48 PM El Greko, I have no idea why anyone would think that Shambles' post addressed my point at all! ??? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: George Papavgeris Date: 21 Aug 05 - 05:43 PM Roger, in your last post you told Susan "If you wish to post on a forum on a different basis - where open debate is not encouraged but where personal judgements of each other are made and imposed - perhaps you should find one that operates in the way you wish it to - or start one?" - implying that this forum is not like that (i.e. not a forum where open debate is not encouraged etc etc). Is it me being confused in my dotage, or have you now reversed your original position? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: katlaughing Date: 21 Aug 05 - 04:22 PM Well put, Susan! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 21 Aug 05 - 03:03 PM Good thing I didn't say anything about the dirty knife! Susan this has always been a public discussion forum. It remains one that is open to the all public to post on equal terms. If you wish to post on a forum on a different basis - where open debate is not encouraged but where personal judgements of each other are made and imposed - perhaps you should find one that operates in the way you wish it to - or start one? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 21 Aug 05 - 10:03 AM ...when the originator is placed in the position of questioning the need for such an imposition... People who have voiced editing/titling concerns in the fashion repeatedly requested by appointed site mgmt-- privately-- have been heard with respect, and their opinions have been taken into account by the folks responsible for looking at the "big picture." People who have, instead, mounted public campaigns pretending to speak for many, when it is actually a case of their own wounded excessive pride, have not. In the former case people show good faith. In the latter, they show the intention to cause widepread community harm rather than even try to take reasonable steps to resolve perceived personal harm. Such "originators" place THEMSELVES in the awkward position described. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 21 Aug 05 - 09:40 AM nit picking shambles - the thread was clearly what most people would consider a "song challenge. MMario - No - in my opinion as the thread's originator - it was not. Your personal judgement is not going to be helpful - is really intended to be? If in the opinion of the poor unfortunate who had suffered the wound - it was very painful - would you - expressing an opinion that it was not painful - actually be likely to make it any less painful to the victim - or be seen as very helpful under the circumstances? Is it any comfort to someone who tells you they cannot sleep - to tell that you always sleep like a baby? But why is it not also considered by you equally to be 'nit-picking' when some anonymous volunteer fellow poster feels that they have to impose such a change - without the originator's knowledge or permission? Why do you consider that it is only 'nit-picking' when the originator is placed in the position of questioning the need for such an imposition on our forum? It seems to be a common assumption by many posters here - that the problem only becomes one - when a poster feels themselves forced into the position of voicing an request for a different approach. It then appears that this is just the start of an 'open season' of abusive personal judgements, name-calling and foul language directed at the poster requesting a change - some of this indeed comming from those volunteer fellow posters. An example that is only going to encourage other posters to do the same and think that such posting is now acceptable on our forum. As Monty Python says "Good thing I didn't say anything about the dirty knife! [PM] Joe Offer BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 31 Mar 05 Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos. So, Max appointed some of us to try to keep down the worst of the nastiness. We don't do enough to satisfy some people (Clinton Hammond, for example), and we do too much to satisfy Shambles. So, we continue to stumble along what we see as the middle path, knowing that we will never satisfy everybody. Such is life. -Joe Offer- It is my contention that it would now appear that 'our' forum has been taken over by those who may not wish to 'make it a place of combat and chaos' but who have now adopted these methods and from whom - much of the current 'nastiness' is comming from. That it time to stop 'stumbling along' - or rather acting and doing as 'WE' like - and put a final end to this division, needless imposition and personal judgement. Can we please all just become 'fellow posters' once again? |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST,Ahgighi,,, Date: 19 Aug 05 - 06:28 PM Gmmmffff!!! Mmmf! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: GUEST,Fed up Date: 19 Aug 05 - 05:45 PM Would we all pull together and tell Shambles to shut the fuck up!! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: The Shambles Date: 19 Aug 05 - 05:42 PM And to further clarify your muddy waters - as you have qouted above - not that removal of the song challenge would relagate your thread to BS - but if you insisted on making the thread a diatrabe against editing and or the volunteers. MMario - if you care to look again - you will see that Joe Offer's threat to relegate the thread was made before the further threat he made to me about any diatribes. Threats plainly don't work - but Joe only seems to have that club in his bag.... That's your choice - keep the tag, or have it removed and have the thread on the bottom half of the Forum Menu. It was not a song challenge - it was a thread song but the only thing that appears to matter now is Joe Offer's personal disapproval of either - expressed again in the form of an editing comment. |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Wesley S Date: 19 Aug 05 - 04:19 PM And if they deleate my posts I'll just start a thread about this thread and then someone can start a thread asking Max about MY thread and then...... |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: wysiwyg Date: 19 Aug 05 - 04:18 PM It's quite simple really. When the Clones finally get around to combining this thread with its DUPLICATE, preserving the post order of course, it will all make sense-- just like secret writing exposed to a little warmth. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: artbrooks Date: 19 Aug 05 - 03:40 PM That's ok...the thread commenting about this thread will probably go just as high............ |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: jeffp Date: 19 Aug 05 - 03:26 PM YOU BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Wesley S Date: 19 Aug 05 - 03:25 PM 500!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Wesley S Date: 19 Aug 05 - 03:25 PM 499 |
|
Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complaint) From: Cluin Date: 19 Aug 05 - 03:02 PM Been stewing about that one since February? |
| Share Thread: |