 sj |
||
|
||
Question for Joe Offer on Censorship
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Sibelius Date: 20 Oct 02 - 09:28 AM Thank you, kat. My first html lesson. I've been around here for a few months now, on and off, but I'm grateful for your welcome. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: The Shambles Date: 20 Oct 02 - 07:16 AM Sibelius Its so simple and child proof! *Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: katlaughing Date: 20 Oct 02 - 06:55 AM Sibelius, you have to use html coding, except for line breaks. In case you are not familiar with it, to do italics put an "i", without the quotation marks, inside these brackets: <> without any spaces. When you want the italics to stop, just type the same thing, but put a forward slash in front of the "i". Again, no spaces: bracket, "/", "i", bracket. For bold, use a "b" and for underline use a "u." Welcome to the Mudcat. toadfrog, "non-PC" means "non-politically correct." kat |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Sibelius Date: 20 Oct 02 - 04:43 AM Guest, the joke was: "Italians? They have slanty little eyes. Oh no, that's italics..." They never work if you have to explain 'em do they? But rest assured, it's a phonetic play on words, not wide-of-the-mark racial stereotyping. Nothing to do with eyes either, come to that. While I'm thread-creeping, how do you make italic/bold/underline text in this forum? I can't find a text tool, and I've tried typing posts in a word processor and pasting it into the thread, but that didn't work either - didn't retain the text formatting, I mean. Should I be asking this under a new thread with a 'tech' label? |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: toadfrog Date: 20 Oct 02 - 01:22 AM Shambles, what is a "non-PC" is that like a MacIntosh? I would think people without PC's would be unable to access Mudcat. Or? |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: GUEST Date: 19 Oct 02 - 11:03 PM SHAMBLES - I lost your joke please explain - it is probably a cultural thing I do not understand. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: catspaw49 Date: 19 Oct 02 - 10:49 PM It took a long time to really get to the point around here that individual posts or threads were deleted or closed because of attacks on an individual. The problem is and always has been in defining "attack." Some have been very obvious and there would not be anyone who could view it differently. Some, and many of us feel that this is one, are questionable at the very least. When it falls in that category, then the minimum to be done is to check with the person being attacked. I have stated here as have others that this wasn't a good call on Joe's part......As someone once said of the Confederate General, Braxton Bragg, "His intentions were honorable, but he was wrong." Granted toadfrog, this may seem much ado about nothing, but we have had countless discussions on censorship here and for those of us that are card carrying ACLU members, it's always a big topic. The net is a different place and this site belongs to Max to do with as he chooses. The opinions on this thread are simply that....opinions. In the final analysis, Max has always tried to be as "Hands off" as possible and so these discussions are more for our own value (whatever that is) than for any reason of making policy. But when Joe and others have the ability to do as Joe has done here, it is in the best interest of all of us to state an opinion......No hatred or attacks on Joe....He's a good guy and my friend. But I will push this envelope as far as I can so that next time it may be handled differently. Knowing Joe, I'm sure it will have that effect on him. Smart man....good man. In this case, I just think he was wrong. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: toadfrog Date: 19 Oct 02 - 10:26 PM Just a question. Why does everyone care so much about knocking off a thread that does not go to music, or even politics? It is not as if a ny specific viewpoint was being removed, or even a specific theme being made taboo? Joe says, no threads attacking an individual, even if the attack is not particularly vicious. I think that's fair enough, if consistently applied. There is no point whatsoever in having threads like that. I fail to see where that is ameaningfully constraint on anyone's freedom. If you want to go attack an individual, you can attack him/her/it in a thread he/she/it started, and not clog up the Forum with yet more useless threads. And no, I don't worship Joe Offer. If he chose to impose a significant restraint, I suspect he just might constrain ideas I agree with. But that just hasn't happened. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 19 Oct 02 - 09:05 PM Bad call Joe, even if executed with good grace. When you stepped in it was already clear that 53 (Bob) was quite relaxed, and was actually one of those keeping the thread alive. And it was clear (to me at any rate) that the opening post could sustain a benign intent (as the poster now says was intended). The maxim for censorship in a liberal society must be: if in doubt, leave in. One way to resolve the doubt on any future occasion might be to sound out the party apparently under attack. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: The Shambles Date: 19 Oct 02 - 07:42 PM Reminds me of a joke on TV last night. Italians are slainty eyed.........Oh no that's italics Should we expect we will be censored here for being non PC? I think yes, we should. *smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Art Thieme Date: 19 Oct 02 - 05:22 PM Shambles, ----------- I never came out of italics either. And someone locked the door on me. But I just thought of this---a question for you all: I know that Genitalia is the Italian national airline. But are ITALICS Italian Catholics? Hell, I'm still in italics. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Glade Date: 19 Oct 02 - 02:55 PM Amos, I adored your story about the angel. Are there any more? Please excuse if this is threadcreep, but I really think it's lovely. Glade |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: the lemonade lady Date: 19 Oct 02 - 02:51 PM Well I'm glad I've got this thread on my personal page so that I can refer to various bits of it.......and no I won't tell you why but...... #8-) |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: GUEST,Rightful Queen Ruler of Mudcat Date: 19 Oct 02 - 01:12 PM ...actually, all you pathetic sycophants should be kissing the hem of my gilded robe...I could have shoved JoeBro in the alligator pit at Mayaka River State Park and I didn't!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: The Shambles Date: 19 Oct 02 - 09:07 AM Who censored my above message? I forgot to come out of italics Many thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: The Shambles Date: 19 Oct 02 - 05:01 AM "I would assume that if Max has a problem with Joe's decisions, Max will take it up with Joe." If he has in the past, does he over this issue (as it would appear given the comments of the those involved, he may have good reason to), or ever does in the future, will you ever know? And does it matter, if he does disagree but does not take it up with Joe? |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: catspaw49 Date: 19 Oct 02 - 02:03 AM ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!! Geeziz......Doncha' just gotta' love this fuckin' place????? The guy who Joe says was guilty of a personal attack resulting in closure of the thread isn't troubled by the closure and the guy who was supposedly being attacked wasn't troubled by leaving the thread open............ Gawd.......It's so beautifully symetrical! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Leadfingers Date: 18 Oct 02 - 07:13 PM The closure of the thread didnt bother me.I was more boithered by the tought I might have upset any other Catters |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Skipjack K8 Date: 18 Oct 02 - 07:09 PM Has anyone read all this? Postpone the test a year and then revisit the earthshattering importance of this pusilanimous debate. Sorry, gotta go and wash my hair. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: NicoleC Date: 18 Oct 02 - 07:02 PM I would assume that if Max has a problem with Joe's decisions, Max will take it up with Joe. Keep up the good work, Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: The Shambles Date: 18 Oct 02 - 06:44 PM Whether one considers Joe to be right or wrong on this occasion, it is a fact that he will at some point make a decision that will appear to be wrong to most, if not all of us. If the censorship is done by Max (or not done at all), he will NEVER be wrong, because whatever we think, it is his game and it is his ball we are playing with. If he takes it home with him, we can't argue and should not. With the present set-up, we are set to be arguing this one forever (no change there then). The main problem with appointing a censor is that, you have to always agree with them, that every decision they ever make is a correct one. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Art Thieme Date: 18 Oct 02 - 06:31 PM Joe and the rest of the clowns ;-) do fine jobs here. If Mudcat were mine to regulate, fully a third of the threads started here would never have seen the light of day. Moderated sites tend to stick to their stated topic. But that's just me. I wouldn't make value judgments on the personalities of the off-the-wall topic starters. I'd simply delete their threads and their silliness -------- and I'd probably do that before ten or fifteen posts had accumulated. It's not personal, and it's not their fault. They know not what they do. Immersed in their bliss, they've simply picked false gods to be their mentors. I've never looked in on that 53 thread; maybe I ought to do that. Gargoyle and I have actually agreed on a few points over the years---especially where sticking to folklore and folksong is concerned. But the man has been terrible to some people I've really come to love and admire here at Mudcat. After the extremely hurtful things he has said about certain ones of those good folks, I would just like to say, for the record, that Max, PeneAzul, Joe and whoever else have all the support I can generate. I stand behind you all 100% when you decide to toss the negativity out o' here. I just wish you'd do it more often, and for more of the reasons I have mentioned in this and other posts and threads on what is (and what isn't) a folksong and/or grist for the Mudcat mill.---------But you already knew that!? With real admiration and affection, Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: catspaw49 Date: 18 Oct 02 - 04:14 PM So let's see here............ Everyone, including myself, believes that Joe is sincere in his job and always means the best. However, in this case........ Leadfingers states (and I believe him) that it was a legitimate/genuine question and meant no harm. Most have seen infinitely worse around here that has been allowed to continue. Bob himself says (and I equally believe him) that he was not bothered by the thread in question. I still stand by my original accessment that in this case, Joe was wrong. He works hard for the 'Cat, we all love him.......but on this one, he was wrong. Everything is a judgement call and this is hopefully a learning experience.......for us all. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Leadfingers Date: 18 Oct 02 - 03:01 PM As the poster of the original bit on this,can I say that it was a genuine question,with no intention to upset any body.I have had my wrist slapped in PMs from other catters,and will try not to be so thoughtless in the future.OK? |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Amos Date: 18 Oct 02 - 02:06 PM Ya know, Garg, when you're speaking from the right side of your face, you're really smart and interesting and pleasant!! Reminds me of an old fairy tale about a little angel who gets trapped in one of those stone Gargoyle heads at Notre Dame. She gets stuck in there and half of the things that come out of the stone mouth in discussing Parisian affairs with pigeons and such are her own, and half are the bitter stone-head stuff. At some point, the bad half gets to unload his stress or his confusion or whatever, and becomes a renewed, soft-spoken soul, at which point the little angel is suddenly freed and rejoins her band. I forget who wrote it...actually maybe it hasn't been written yet, come to think of it. But anyway, I enjoy your posts Hope to hear more from ye. A |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 18 Oct 02 - 01:19 PM Joe, ya done good. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: harpgirl Date: 18 Oct 02 - 12:24 PM I'm leaving and never coming back!!!!! YOu won't have harpy to kick around any more! (clap, clap, clap, clap, cheer, cheer, cheer)!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 18 Oct 02 - 08:11 AM In retrospect -
|
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: reggie miles Date: 18 Oct 02 - 03:41 AM Note to self: Rick says threads with the word censorship in title get most attention. ;~) |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Oct 02 - 02:29 AM Well, gee, Garg, I've seen you do some great work on a couple of music threads. Can't understand why you have to be nasty to people, though. You should leave that to Harpy. She's got a PhD in it. Ooops! Did I say that??? Fr. Joebro's reputation, ruined forever.. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 18 Oct 02 - 12:16 AM Actually Joe...I'm kinda glad you have cleaned up my image around here over the past year....its a kinder gentler personae that's presented....and I'm learning to play nice
|
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: GUEST,Richie Date: 17 Oct 02 - 10:28 PM As a guest at Mudcat the last several months, I only have the highest regard for Joe Offer and the excellent work he has done organizing, cleaning up and contributing to threads. Joe is simply a valuable asset to Mudcat. I also want to thank the many members here for their contributions, I've learned a lot. Conflicts and disagreements are part of the learning process and being able to disagree is what makes Mudcat great. Keep up the good work, Richie |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: harpgirl Date: 17 Oct 02 - 10:25 PM ...geez Mick, I already told you I didn't need a public apology. I was tongue in cheek about that because someone is always saying something about someone and no one can possibly please everyone and what about all the flame wars with GUESTs that weren't deleted....and on and on... I think we should police ourselves. If we don't then Mudcat will become McMudcat again. It was going that way until the new structure took care of many of the complaints. I've always thought that Max really wants us to police ourselves but he is not quite tough enough to stand up for that so he passed off the problem by giving delete powers to the closest person we have to a priest. But I have never seen Joe as all that perfect. I'm often afraid that he thinks he is close though, which is dangerous. And his martyish whining usually irritates me. I'm most trusting of him only when he admits he gets pissed, is petty, is often wrong, and admits he doesn't have to do all those wonderful things that he does for us so why are we so ungrateful?????? But I'll bow to the majority. Although I have an aversion to making nice to win a popularity contest.....I think people should be allowed to say what they think....we already have enough laws to corral and punish free speech and it's getting worse every minute harpy |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Bobert Date: 17 Oct 02 - 10:08 PM Hey, the job could be rotated and then every Catter would get his or her turn, but, as fir my own Wes Ginny butt, I'd take a pass. I realize it may be hard at times to look into a cybermates heart and act on what you think the intent is, but I think we all recognize the line that need no be crossed. Yeah, I do get on my high horse as DougR will attest to but there is a manner in which folks can mix it up without namecallin' or threatenin'. The litmus test, I would think, is the person talking ideas or personalities and if a little of both, which one dominates the post. I for one, would like a certain member to be censored from referring to a former President as a "bag of puss' buit since there are some ideas that go along with the namecalling, I reluctantly accept it under the guise of "heat of the battle". Keep up the good work, Joe. You are my hero... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Big Mick Date: 17 Oct 02 - 09:56 PM Folks, someone has to do it, and they won't always be right in someone's opinion. I am one of those that feels strongly that censorship is not a wise thing and that it is better for us to practice self censorship by not responding. Joe and I have disagreed, and some times in a very strong way, but I must tell you that when I look to judge whether I can live with something like this, I do so on the basis of intent. Joe's intent is crystal clear. He seeks to keep this place civil, and he only deletes on the rare occasion, and with a set of guidelines. The one thing I know about him is that he is one of the most honorable, hardworking, and decent people that I have had the pleasure to meet. Therefore when we disagree, and that is not uncommon, I still wash my feelings in the knowledge of the type of person he is. No place is perfect, but this place is making an attempt to walk the line between open communication and limited censorship. And Abby (Harpgirl), I appreciate that you didn't say me when you indicated the problem of false accusation, but let me state publicy that I was the one you referenced. In my duties as a Mudelf/Joeclone, I have come to see that I was in error. I attacked and insinuated publicy that you were the one. I feel bound to apologize to you publicly as well. I hope that you forgive those implied accusations. I was wrong to do that. Joe, it was a judgement call. Whether I agree with it or not, is another matter, but I respect that you made it in the spirit of keeping this place in good shape. Thanks for all you do. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Oct 02 - 09:20 PM Well, Kat you could do one for me here if you like. *G* ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: katlaughing Date: 17 Oct 02 - 08:02 PM Joe's is a volunteer position and not one person has said a thing about the time involved. Sending a PM to each and every poster of an individual thread would be very time-consuming. Max doesn't have the time and I don't think it should be expected of Joe. I didn't read the thread involved, so I cannot comment on that. I don't see eye-to-eye with Joe a lot of the time, but I do know he is conscientious almost to a fault and puts a great deal of thought into what he does here, before he does it, which is more than can be said for a lot of us. Joe clones do not delete, unless it is a duplicate posting. If we come across something questionable, I don't know about the others, but I always PM Joe or Jeff (Pene) to alert them to it. The only times I have done that is when I see what have been quite obviously extreme personal attacks, such as one in which a suicidal peson was told by a well-known guest poster, to go get a gun and shoot themselves, or obvious spam from a commercial site which has nothing to do with music or any Mudcatter. As far as gargoyle goes or any postings which might attack me personally, I don't touch those with a ten-foot pole. Usually I laugh it off and ignore it, BUT I never delete it. Also, joe clones do not have access to any personal information, "secret" codes or anything else of that nature which a paranoid or two persons have speculated about. With the new Mudcat, there's not even that much for a joe clone to do! Heck, it's been ages since I've had to go put in line breaks for anyone!:-) kat |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: DougR Date: 17 Oct 02 - 06:57 PM I didn't read the thread, Joe, so I cannot comment on that. I can on policy, and I like Max's policy of censorship when someone posts a personal attack. I suppose what is and what isn't a personal attack is in the eyes of the beholder because you, Joe, thought it was, while others posting here did not believe it was. All that says to me is anyone who has your job is going to be subject to "second guessing" and criticizm. Good cases have been presented for both POVS, but I'll go along with you, because it is your job, and I think you try to be fair. I don't think such decisions should be decided by committee. I don't think it is realistic at all to expect Max to take on that responsibility, and I'm glad someone is willing to do it. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: harpgirl Date: 17 Oct 02 - 04:17 PM Actually I don't believe that anyone should have deletion powers but Max, but he has given them to several people and so be it. In my own mind, these individuals have no more ability to determine what is proper than anyone else here does. I am just willing to go along with the majority since one voice won't usually change those minds who have deletion power. But frankly, I think they all have decided they know better and I don't agree with that! (What I really think) harpy |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 17 Oct 02 - 03:22 PM If I were in Joe's shoes, I would have sent a brief PM to each of the folks who had posted to the thread explaining why I had decided to kill the thread, and quietly deleted it. (Surely, Joe, you had to realize that this thread would be the inevitable consequence of the way you did handle it.) For that matter, I don't really see why some of the other members who are acquainted with Bob's situation didn't take it upon themselves to PM a few folks (like relative newcomer yours truly) and tell them what's going on. When you meet someone in person, you learn a lot about them in a hurry. Out here in cyberspace, it doesn't happen quite so quickly. To put it rather bluntly, it's sometimes hard to tell from a person's post whether they're drunk, just kidding around, being a smart-ass, or have a legitimate problem. If I were to make the mistake of assuming someone was being a smart-ass when, in fact, it was a problem with the person's communication skills, I would certainly not mind if someone sent me a PM to set the matter straight. Bruce |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: The Shambles Date: 17 Oct 02 - 02:58 PM Let he who without sin cast the first stone. Having read this I still do not understand why anyone would willingly undertake such a powerful, unpaid and impossible position as official Forum censor and be also be prepared to contribute (on equal terms) with all the other contributors? Does the post holder deserve our praise or our suspicion? I hope they expect to receive little of the former and much of the latter. Has it ever been established that the Forum needs to place anyone in such a such a position? If Max decides the Forum does need censorship, Max should be the only one to do it. I would vote for Max to do it, as no one can argue with the view of our creator and he does need or try to contribute on equal terms with all of the other contributors .... If I had a such a vote, which I don't. Silly me, for a dictatorship does not give one a vote, even a benevolent dictatorship (if such a thing could exist). Max's fine Mudcat is probably as close to this as it gets. If there was a point when this (fantasy) benevolent dictatorship possibly changes in to a malelevolent dictatorship, it is probably when censorship is introduced and meekly accepted or even welcomed with open arms. Especially when this grave responsibilty is delegated to one of us. I shall have to be careful as this may be perceived as a personal attack (and censored). It is not that....It is however, questioning the wisdom of anyone who would willingly accept this unrewarded and unrewarding poison chalice, anyone who would wish to pass on this responsibilty and anyone who perceives anything other than self censorship to be a good or necessary thing. Its a dirty job and if no one is prepared to do it, it does not get done. Does somebody really need to do it? Can we really not do it ourselves? |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Oct 02 - 02:06 PM Okay Susan.....to respond....... This is how I see it. I butt heads with Joe on a regular basis. (We just have trouble working well together.) But I always, always trust Joe to keep thinking abou things, and I would far rather have that quality in the role he plays, than that he decide things the way I would. Couldn't agree more....I'm not asking him to decide my way and I do believe in Joe's sincerity in doing a hard job. My personal opinion in this instance, after a long period of advocating for Bob and trying to help him learn what actually works here, is that we need to trust Bob to keep thinking too, and to figure out from the feedback he gets here, what works and what doesn't. Exactly my point and I don't think Joe falis to give Bob credit in this case and is still in a protection mode....Bob doesn't need that in this case. Perhaps Joe isn't as familiar with Bob as you or I....in which case, he makes a decision without all of the relevant information. bob states himself that he wasn't bothered by the thread and I believe him. But when Joe decides things around here, I support that. Because the only way Joe can do his job is to DO it, on any given day, the best way he knows how. How can he learn and get even better at it if he doesn't do things in his own way so he can learn for himself what's workable and what's not? He can define his role for himself (with Max of course). I imagine it's one that evolves over time, just as we human beings generally do.I too support Joe, but if I don't voice an opinion when I think him wrong, then I do Joe a disservice. The role does evolve and that requires feedback...which is why I believe this thread was started. So, go Joe! Yeah.....Just not too far..... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Oct 02 - 02:05 PM You missed out Guns, Bush and "What is folk?", Rick. (And "why are Americans so fat?", of course.) |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Micca Date: 17 Oct 02 - 01:56 PM Good on you Joe, I wouldnt have your job for all the scotch in Isla!!! Having been on the receiving end, too, of deleted posts by a "Guest" I am grateful for the deletion and fully support joe and the others in their Judgements on this. I can understand coming here as a guest to get a subject discussed that one may not want clouded by "personalities" or that may be very personal and painful, but personal attacks, gimme a break!! It was the strong suspicion that it was made by someone I know, and know well!! and that the same person may well post here supporting this debate, all pious and innocent, and maybe even meet me face to face and just be Brass necked enough to do so that makes me irritable. If anyone wants to have a go, Come on, I am ready, but at least be up front and honest!! and not a phony pseudo-friend!! |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Rick Fielding Date: 17 Oct 02 - 01:56 PM Jeesus, I thought the way to get a lot of people to notice and post to your thread was to put any of the following words into it: Ireland Northern Ireland Sex Max Israel Shatner Or phrases: "Is there sex in Northern Ireland"? "Why doesn't Max answer my e-mails"? "Israel Shatner, William's smarter brother". But I was wrong. The words "Joe Offer" and "censorship" (in all possible combinations) work fine. I'll remember that. Cheers Joe, see ya in Warshington. Rick P.S. I'll defend until death (anyone's but mine) your right to do whatever the hell you want.....it ain't like this stuff is IMPORTANT! |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Oct 02 - 01:47 PM This is how I see it. I butt heads with Joe on a regular basis. (We just have trouble working well together.) But I always, always trust Joe to keep thinking abou things, and I would far rather have that quality in the role he plays, than that he decide things the way I would. My personal opinion in this instance, after a long period of advocating for Bob and trying to help him learn what actually works here, is that we need to trust Bob to keep thinking too, and to figure out from the feedback he gets here, what works and what doesn't. But when Joe decides things around here, I support that. Because the only way Joe can do his job is to DO it, on any given day, the best way he knows how. How can he learn and get even better at it if he doesn't do things in his own way so he can learn for himself what's workable and what's not? He can define his role for himself (with Max of course). I imagine it's one that evolves over time, just as we human beings generally do. So, go Joe! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Kim C Date: 17 Oct 02 - 01:34 PM Most forums have rules of propriety, and will tell you up front, if you get nasty here, your post goes bye-bye. Get nasty here too many times, and You go bye-bye. I didn't even read the threads in question so I can't comment on those in particular. Unfortunately it's true that not everyone knows how to play nice, and sometimes they have to get their knuckles rapped. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: harpgirl Date: 17 Oct 02 - 01:23 PM I want that offensive personal attack deleted immediately! Who does that obnoxious possum-butt-blowing..so and so think he is? Love, harpy |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: EBarnacle1 Date: 17 Oct 02 - 12:37 PM The other day, on another forum, I got flamed. My response was simply "Thank you for your lovely flame," which I sent. On second thought, as I know the flamer reasonably well, I will probably phone him and ask him what is really upsetting him and whether he wishes to talk about it. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Amos Date: 17 Oct 02 - 12:26 PM I think you have a very keen sense of the finer points, SPaw!! LOL!! A |
| Share Thread: |