 sj |
||
|
||
Thread Proliferation Control
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:08 PM it doesent work! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:05 PM < i>This thread is proff that blar blar blar...< i/i> |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: michaelr Date: 05 Mar 03 - 10:52 PM Yep, this here is one thread that could benefit from proliferation control! Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 05 Mar 03 - 10:43 PM oh my goodness - this is now a tech thread! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 05 Mar 03 - 10:26 PM John, I think you were just funning us, but just in case, anotehr way of putting it: Type in this symbol: < Then the letter "i" without the quotation marks, with no space in between Then type in this symbol: > Then write the words which you want to fall over Then type this symbol again: < Then the "i" again but with a backward slash before it: /i Then this symbol again: > That's all there is to it, be sure there are no spaces between the symbols and the "i" and "/i" between each set. Hope that's clear as mud.:-) kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Amos Date: 05 Mar 03 - 09:38 PM Actually John, another three pints and eveyrthing you see will be leaning over like that! A |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 05 Mar 03 - 07:57 PM "in front"falling over writing"not falling over writing. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: artbrooks Date: 05 Mar 03 - 07:50 PM Hi, John....assuming that you will come back here for the answer to your question....you put the characters "<i>" in front and "</i>" after the part you want to lean. You don't put in the "" marks! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 05 Mar 03 - 07:30 PM Hello, how do you make your writing lean over like that? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jeri Date: 05 Mar 03 - 06:47 PM "This thread is proof that Mudcat Management cannot and will not allow itself to be criticized. Period." Anybody who doesn't think this is irony when it's said in a thread that's 221 posts long and consists largely of criticism needs to have the batteries replaced in their irony detector. I'm just not sure it was intended irony. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: NicoleC Date: 05 Mar 03 - 06:26 PM This thread is proof that Mudcat Management cannot and will not allow itself to be criticized. Period. Yes! They have horribly prevented all sorts of dubious types from spewing reams of deconstructive criticism by shutting down this thread or even deleting posts they didn't like! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 05 Mar 03 - 06:08 PM Joe, I had to laugh over in the White Muslim thread. Our friend, JR Wamso Peace Matriot Samantha et al, mentioned that she hoped that we wouldn't delete an attack on her because she likes knowing who the troglodytes are. Look in a mirror. Something twisted in the person who maintains her right to attack using multiple personalities wanting to be able to ID others. By the way, you haven't answered by query, WAMSO Matriot JR, about the logic of pretending that you are Russian, or answering your own posts as if two different people. I am interested in knowing what higher purpose is served by that. I know the problems here center around sick, power hungry people like myself, but I am trying to improve. So could you help me to understand, oh wise one? Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Mar 03 - 06:00 PM This thread is proof that Mudcat Management cannot and will not allow itself to be criticized. Period Yeah, the son-of-a-bitches have the audacity to talk back when they're attacked!! They even use their dreaded Weapon of Mass Destruction - LOGIC!!! Shame on those Mudcat Mafia guys! -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 05 Mar 03 - 05:11 PM Hahaha, that's one of the funniest things I've ever read on here...I'm sure Max will be happy to be informed of such! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,Vulcanus Rex Date: 05 Mar 03 - 04:58 PM This thread is proof that Mudcat Management cannot and will not allow itself to be criticized. Period. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:35 PM The Shambles-does it really fucking matter wether your thread is linked to the others? Just about everybody here is happy with the way things are now, a few people moaned at the amount of war threads, so Joe stuck a few of them together, a few people moaned at the amount of BS here, so they created a filter, then put all the BS at the bottom of the list, a few people moaned about the amount of stuff about Hull here, i have just created a site specificly for hull news.Just about everybody here is happy now, you are still moaning! just drop it will you? John PS. dont bother sending me a PM, I have said all i want to here. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:11 PM Good recent discussion on this thread, people. Thanks for the civility. I still want someone to answer to me why people think that the concept of "censorship" has any weight here whatsoever. Will someone who thinks that Joe's actions constitute censorship please explain this to me? Mudcat is not a public speech forum. It is a private entity. Even the American Civil Liberties Union would laugh at you if you tried to bring suit against Mudcat for free speech issues. pax yall |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 05 Mar 03 - 10:38 AM You can make all the claims you wish that PELs should be discussed on the forum, but when you following these up with the following judgmental comments, as you do. It all makes no logical sense. . HOWEVER, this is a problem that will be cured by logic, persuasion, and negotiation - not by burying Mudcat or Parliament or anyone in a flood of words. Mudcat is a perfect place for discussion of this topic - but not a place for propaganda. There are no buts. This subject is no more or less valid than any other music concerned subject and presents exactly the same problems as any other well-supported subject over a long period. Who is qualified to judge what is or is not 'propaganda'? Even if you could define it, where is it so written that it is forbidden anyway? Propaganda is usually what the other side will claim you are spouting and in any campaign, the views you express are always propaganda. But the above judgement Joe is only your opinion, as valid as any other, but still only an opinion. Sadly you have grumbled on for so long, some folk assume that the PEL threads do present particular problems. But you also claim that it is a practical problem, but still prefer for some reason to grumble on about the number of threads - rather than address it. Click here for the entire list of PEL threads. Even Shambles complains about the length of the list, because it appears at the top of every PEL thread. I last counted sixty, but now I think the number is 115. There's a lot of good information there - but you have to wade though a lot of repeated information to get to the new stuff. So yeah, I think a little moderation would be nice. And yeah, I think it would be good to post chiefly to existing threads on the topic. Again the comments again are not confined to PEL threads, but are a general problem. The linking of related threads at the top of each thread was not a bad idea. However, having 115 links, on top of say 400 poster's names, means that another idea for well-supported subjects needs to be found. I have not complained about this but I have requested, as independently have to two other posters, that this be addressed. So where is the logic in Joe's argument? There are already 115 threads listed, even if no more threads were created and all future contributions were contained in these, there would still be (practically) too many listed at the top of each thread! The only practical response so far was the token effort to un-link the single, 'Then they came for me thread'. So we now only have 114! I can't really see that removing or placing a single link to this full list presents a difficult practical problem. Perhaps Jeff could clarify this? From what I have read, I suspect the list remains because Joe does not trust the poster's ability to use the existing links, if the full list is not displayed. [In brown] Roger, I don't like the way thread grouping works when there's a long list of threads, either. It works quite well in most situations, but the PEL list and Woody Guthrie and a couple of others don't group satisfactorily with the system we have. Jeff is toying with alternate ideas, but has not yet come up with an alternative that is satisfactory. Be assured that your request has been heard. Still, it's nice to have all the related threads visible, in hope that people will post to the appropriate existing thread instead of starting yet another one. We haven't found the perfect balance yet. The down side to this, apart from the length of time it takes to open is that, I gave out a link to one of the threads, and the person gave up, as they saw the list and then the list of posters and wrote back to say that the site was broken. I suppose there could be a vague connection between the saying and the PEL issue, but "They Came For Me" is usually understood to refer to the Holocaust, not to Public Entertainment Licenses. To me, linking "They Came For Me" to PEL's is a sacrilege. PEL's are a serious issue, but the Holocaust is the most awful thing that has happened in the history of the human race. To lump the Holocaust and PEL's together is to cheapen the importance of both of these serious issues. Again you are welcome to your opinion, but not to act on it without first obtaining the consent of the originator, or acting out of spite, in direct conflict with the wishes of the originator. To put the Holocaust in a box and to assume it happened because of a few human monsters is dangerous. Most of the human beings responsible for this and all the other terrible acts of genocide and inhumanity are sadly just like us. They screwed-up then just as we too screw-up every day. 'They came for me', is relevant to every aspect of our lives, and should always be in our minds, to hopefully prevent any reoccurrence. For these issues grow from small beginnings into the huge atrocities we abhor, they don't come clearly labelled. To change the subject a little, when a issue arrives, people often ask if you believe it was cock-up or conspiracy. I find it is usually both. A cock-up occurs and people conspire to cover it up, or call it by another name. It may only be a little tiny piece of censorship – but it is censorship. Let us call it by its name. Then we know how to control it before it controls us and becomes beyond our control. Let's find honest practical solutions for practical problems and not confuse our well-intentioned judgement, with these practical problems. Explanation of thread grouping: the way Jeff designed the system is quite clever. I enter a list of thread numbers on a page, and the page is programmed to put a list of crosslinks at the top of each interrelated thread. I used to have to put crosslinks into each thread by hand, but this automates the whole process. However, the system wasn't designed in anticipation of somebody starting 115...er, 114 threads on the same subject. It works well in almost every situation but the PEL threads. Accommodating the PEL threads will require some major changes in programming. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 05 Mar 03 - 08:52 AM Some facts. From the 'Then they came for me thread'. 21 Feb 03 - 09:48 PM Post Must be because The Shambles started it... a Mudcat mistake. [Edit in green] I believe it was a mistake. It's now unlinked. --JoeClone [Edit in brown] I did the original grouping for the PEL threads, basing it on the "PEL: Links to all of them" thread. Since this thread was on the list, I included it. I was mistaken. The JoeClone was correct to remove it from the PEL group. -Joe Offer- [Edit in green] Shambles stated, in the thread on Thread Proliferation that he HAD wanted it to be grouped with the PEL threads, so it's back. --JoeClone [Edit in brown] 4 March 03 -Well, I guess Shambles succeeded in his attempt to manipulate us into looking silly. The thread has been removed from the PEL group. This decision is final. -Joe Offer- Subject: RE: Then they came for me? From: The Shambles - PM Date: 25 Feb 03 - 05:40 AM It was NOT a mistake. Perhaps it could kindly be re-linked? Perhaps Joe you could have checked, before acting on what you beleived? Joe in this thread. [In black] When it was determined that this thread was included by mistake, it was removed, and then inserted again due to miscommunication when Shambles demanded it. It was removed once again, and will not be included in the PEL group. Joe if you can construe 'Perhaps it could kindly be re-linked' as a demand and a polite request as an ' attempt to manipulate us into looking silly', I think you have well made my point. If the above 'Gollum-like' mutterings make you look or feel silly, it is all of your own making and certainly not my intention. For the fact that you saw it as a 'demand' seemed to be the spiteful reason you finally decided to un-link it and as everyone can now clearly see it wasn't a demand, perhaps you could now kindly re-link it and we can all move on. You sum-up with. So, that's mostly the facts, plus a small dose of my personal opinion. It's unfair to condemn me for my opinion if you fail to state my opinion correctly. Your opinion I can deal with, it is your manipulation, bullying tone and final word, and telling the difference between them, that I have a more of problem with. In any 'verbal joust' with the King, it is as well to remember that he has the power at any time to chop off your head. This hardly makes for a fair contest. You appear to have a basic problem in that you do not trust the posters and see everything as a paranoid 'battle over turf'. There may well be such a battle, but this is only with 'shadows'. Keeping on swinging the baseball bat at these shadows will not harm them but it will harm the people and very thing you claim to be fighting for. It is a discussion forum and it requires posts, threads and free expression from all shapes and sizes, it is not a battle. If you wish to change something, what is wrong with asking first? Confine your opinions to the forum, where they have just as much validity as everyone else, and continue to 'empty the bins' by all means. But please do not aspire to judge us, or the value, intent or other aspects of our threads for us – we can do that ourselves. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 03 - 11:42 PM Nicely said, Joe. A |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Mar 03 - 11:29 PM Hmmm. should I shut up, or should I respond? Well, what the heck.... I don't harbor animosity and I have no reason for vendattas, but I do enjoy a good verbal joust every once in a while. You can search this forum for as long as you wish, and you can search every e-mail and personal message I've sent, and you will never see any indication that I think that the subject of PEL (Public entertainment Licensing) is inappropriate for Mudcat. There are very few topics that are more appropriate. I am in complete sympathy with all those who oppose PEL's. Is that understood? PEL's are a worthy topic for discussion here. I do not think that any establishment should have to pay a fee if they wish to allow amateur musicians to sing in their establishment. This is a serious problem, a threat to traditional music in the UK. HOWEVER, this is a problem that will be cured by logic, persuasion, and negotiation - not by burying Mudcat or Parliament or anyone in a flood of words. Mudcat is a perfect place for discussion of this topic - but not a place for propaganda. Click here for the entire list of PEL threads. Even Shambles complains about the length of the list, because it appears at the top of every PEL thread. I last counted sixty, but now I think the number is 115. There's a lot of good information there - but you have to wade though a lot of repeated information to get to the new stuff. So yeah, I think a little moderation would be nice. And yeah, I think it would be good to post chiefly to existing threads on the topic. As for removing the They Came For Me thread from the PEL group, I think my decision was reasonable. The first 22 messages in the thread made no mention of PEL's, and the 23rd is a complaint about it being included in the PEL group. I admit it - I'm the one who copied the thread numbers from Shambles' PEL threads list, and I put this thread in the PEL group based on information from Shambles. He did not ask me to include it in the group - I copied the thread number from his links thread. It was my mistake. When it was determined that this thread was included by mistake, it was removed, and then inserted again due to miscommunication when Shambles demanded it. It was removed once again, and will not be included in the PEL group. I suppose there could be a vague connection between the saying and the PEL issue, but "They Came For Me" is usually understood to refer to the Holocaust, not to Public Entertainment Licenses. To me, linking "They Came For Me" to PEL's is a sacrilege. PEL's are a serious issue, but the Holocaust is the most awful thing that has happened in the history of the human race. To lump the Holocaust and PEL's together is to cheapen the importance of both of these serious issues. So, that's mostly the facts, plus a small dose of my personal opinion. It's unfair to condemn me for my opinion if you fail to state my opinion correctly. -Joe Offer- Aw, c'mon, Mark! Did I say anything insulting in that message? No - I just said I was not on a vendetta and had no reason to be on a vendetta - but that our friend floods the place with too much verbiage. I even said I agreed with and admired our friend. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Mark Cohen Date: 04 Mar 03 - 10:51 PM Joe, I hate to keep beating a herd of dead horses, but when you said, "I put my personal views in regular messages. The brown comments are official." I think you must have forgotten about this message, which was in brown: You know, I'm really hurt. I said I often agree with your political opinions, and I said I admire your chutzpah. All I complained about was that you inundate Mudcat with far too much verbiage. Is THAT a vendetta?...I'll stop there. I doubt that anyone would consider this an "official" message. Frankly, I think it was a misuse of your "official" status. It was an understandable mistake, but I still believe it was inappropriate. And in my opinion, the best way to avoid this situation is simply to back off. The segregation of posts was reasonable, though I had no problem with the Forum as it was. And I do agree with the basic principle of curbing personal attacks. But otherwise, as far as I'm concerned the less "thread police" the better. Things have a tendency to work themselves out one way or the other, and nobody ever made a successful career out of pushing rivers. (Well, there is the Army Corps of Engineers, of course...but you know what I mean.) OK, I think I'll go have that Mai Tai on the beach now...it's almost sunset! Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: TIA Date: 04 Mar 03 - 10:33 PM Been gone a couple days...EEEEEExcellent! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: artbrooks Date: 04 Mar 03 - 10:14 PM Ever notice how those who have the least to say, and even less that is worth reading, take up the most space? Joe and crew are doing a great job. Combining threads is a good idea. They have been immediately responsive to legitimate complaints that specific combinations were inappropriate (such as Bee-dubya-el's comment about a purple thing). Splitting off BS is needed, and I appreciate the link to recombine them. BTW, obnoxious neurotic GUEST and pathetic paranoid GUEST are trying really hard to hijack this discussion. Remember, if you don't feed them, they will eventually go away. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 04 Mar 03 - 09:55 PM Rest assured, Shambles, there isn't anything that Joe does that Max does not approve. Joe, Jeff, and Max are the ones to keep this place up and running on track. I supported you on the PEL threads issue, but this one thing you are on about tells me you haven't forgotten how to flog a dead horse. Joe isn't doing any censoring except personal attacks and lengthy cut and paste. That's simple enough to understand, isn't it? So the thread in question was linked, then unlinked, then whatever. So what? It will be here FOREVER. Isn't that enough? Some websites will dump a person's personal webpages, photos, & email after a certain length of time. Not Mudcat. Your words, your wonderful songs, all that you've said on here will always be in the Mudcat database. Be grateful for that and move on to sharing some more of your songs etc., please. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 04 Mar 03 - 08:38 PM ok...at least I made the point I wanted, and you listened and answered. As you note, I don't have any final say. (and, having watched Joe do this 'housekeeping' for several years, I suspect he is far more tolerant and easy about it all than **I** would have been) I don't see any easy answer, for, if Joe were to change and go more in the direction you propose, (i.e. doing almost nothing to the threads), he would no doubt get protests from other quarters. tell you what...I'll trade you a year of fighting PELS for a year of being governed by G. Bush!... |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 04 Mar 03 - 07:38 PM it seems to be difficult for some...members and non-members alike....to accept that their views are in the minority. I do not agree with 'everything' Joe or Max has ever done and said...but I DO accept that they are the management, and I note that a large majority not only accepts that, but agrees with the decisions OF the management. I accept that my views may be a minority, are we not all a minority of one. But since when has the Mudcat been a democracy or a grouping of like-thinking souls? But as the originator of the post in question, I simply feel that my original view and wishes should have been respected or at least requested, before any asumption or decision was made. It was a small point, as I have said. It would appear to have become a larger point when it was seen to be challenge to the new management's authority. Perhaps that is the problem, I was not aware that there had been a change of management ethos and that Joe alone was that management. But Bill you then refer to Max running his own website and me nagging him to do things my way. Not so, It is rather that I expecting Joe to do it Max's way...... The PEL campaign is about the freedom of expression, and so is this. It is also about people in authority who think they have obtained a position where they don't have to listen to perfectly reasonable requests and feel they know what is best to impose on everyone else. Those actively fighting the on PEL issue are indeed being well served and supported by the Mudcat. This has been acknowledged more than once by me in this thread. I think it would be fair to say however that Joe has largely been responsible for publicly creating the idea, or at least making it appear to be a respectable view, that The Mudcat, for various reasons, was not really the place for this subject. A point he has again unnecessarily made in this thread. Is this view management policy also, or Joe's personal view and is there a difference, for Joe's personal opinions and digs, appear in both Big Brother brown and in black. That is the problem I have, for I can argue with you Bill (as we have many times) and you are not going be able to put on your management hat and say this is the final decision..... Not everything on the forum will ever be to everyone's sense of order or taste, but do we really want everything to taste the same? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 04 Mar 03 - 05:57 PM it seems to be difficult for some...members and non-members alike....to accept that their views are in the minority. I do not agree with 'everything' Joe or Max has ever done and said...but I DO accept that they are the management, and I note that a large majority not only accepts that, but agrees with the decisions OF the management. Shambles, perhaps you have struggled with the PELs thing so long and hard that 'protest' against perceived injustice has become a major hobby. Not that protest is inherently bad, but it can get a bit petty if one is not careful.. The situation in English pubs IS a bit different than how Max chooses to run his own web site, but you seem obsessed with poking and nagging him to do it YOUR way. At some point, it might be well to just accept that you have gotten a LOT of use and mileage from this place and allow Max, thru Joe and a couple others, to operate it with merely 94% of the optimum you have as your goal. not a bad deal, it seems to me... |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 03 - 05:09 PM Gee guys, I dunno who the special people are you are upset about -- although I concede there seem to be a certain number who agree with Joe, and a certain number who (in my view) have taken an ordinary management thing and tried to make a political issue out of it. Who are these Mudcat Royals you seem to be upset about? The clones? Is there some dirty pool going on I don't know about? Who specifically are you on about? I think Joe is striving for the best solution for the overall scene here, and you do him a disservice. I haven't seem him remove anything from access except (as he clearly said he would) ad hominem scurrilosities and excessive pasting from other sites, which abuses the privilege of Mudcat bandwidth. FInally, bear in mind that although the internal space of this forum is very wide open, the forum is a cyber-event, not a real-life event, and the creation of it was brought about through a lot of sweat and effort on others' parts, loaded up on machinery bought by others' sweat. As far as I can see, from that perspective, we are all guests. And it seems to me that the protocol of being a guest applies -- try to help the host keep things running and don't add any stress to his life, walk lightly on his hospitality, and do what you can to help out. I don't see a lot of that kind of effort in play here. A |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 04 Mar 03 - 03:36 PM Yes Amos there has been a lot of whingeing and whining, but I am not confused. The situation is pretty clear but there are some who have lost the plot. And I do not see very much constructive thought comming from those self-appointed to protect me. And from what? Can you read back in this thread and look at Joe's 'official'(brown) comments, and honestly tell me that these can be construed as constructive or anything other than power exerted without responsibilty, or any clear goal. With goal posts that can be moved at Joe's personal whim. Whatever problems Joe is supposed to be adressing, these are practical ones and do not require the following paranoid nonsense purporting to be 'official'. Practical problems have practical solutions, not this nasty hidden agenda and censorship, yes censorship. Sounds like manipulation to me, a spoiled kid running to Mommy when Daddy's decision is unsatisfactory. I talked with Jeri about this, and we are in agreement. The decision is final, and the thread has been removed from the PEL group. The consensus in the thread in question was that it should not be included in the PEL group. The only dissenting voice was that of Shambles. I put my personal views in regular messages. The brown comments are official. -Joe Offer- There is a proportiate response to my request and this is not it. All this heavy Big Brother stuff is just not necessary or in the spirit of Max's ideal. Max's ideal is based on trust. This trust is being betrayed by those who support this hyperbole (all for the best of reasons), but betrayed never-the-less.Joe does not appear to be prepared to trust anyone, at it would appear to be infectious. There comes a time when you have to stop and think and to make some difficult choices, I feel this is such a time. My comments at this time may appear to be supporting the obvious destructive element - the shadows you won't ingnore but still insist on trying to smite with a good swipe of a baseball bat, but the really destructive element is Joe's Big Brother concept. This Big Brother, final decision concept of Joe's, is totally destructive to the constuctive ideals and efforts of many that make The Mudcat Cafe the slightly chaotic but wonderful place it remains and which Max created for us. It is all done for the best reasons. However, a flower accidently trampled underfoot, remains just as dead as one deliberately cut down. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Mar 03 - 02:33 PM Amos are you talking about the same small group of people who have been whinging continously for at least 2.5 years about the behavior of "GUESTS"; people who consistantly reinforce this behavior because whinging is the most tasty of troll foods? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 03 - 02:03 PM Sham: You are confused, that's all. All this horseshit about censorship has gone to your head, I think. There are clearly two classes of voice at workhere-- those promulgating unhappiness and those offering constructive thought. No-one has censored your right to say anything -- except personal ad hominem attacks. Doesn't it seem to you, Roger, looking back over this long, dull discussion that there has been a real CARLOAD of whinging here? It does to me. Whinging and whining and complaining about something to which you add nothing, own nothing, and contribute only turbulent confusion is really a low-class act. I see an awful lot of it, and I find it actually repels. Now why would some buncha low-lifes want to take something decent and turn it into something repulsive? Hmmmmm? Hard to imagine what sort of bizarre mindset could sustain an intent so base. A |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 04 Mar 03 - 01:26 PM Amen to that, Brother Jack the Sailor. About time some member spelled out the double standard for the Mudcat Royals, in no uncertain terms. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Mar 03 - 01:21 PM Jack, you knee-jerked. You didn't read it so you wouldn't know, but the person who posted the message you quote from is absolutly right. No Jeri, no a knee jerk, a deliberate strategy to mke my experience on the Mudcat more comfortable. I've just read the "janetryan" post and I stand by my decision. I agree with nearly everything that she says and she does say it quite well and with much less acrimony than many, but that opening statement was enough to tell me not to expect civility, to expect some name calling, and that the author is going to continue with the SOS that pollutes an otherwise very nice on line community. The term "Brat" is a perjoritave and does not belong in polite conversation. It looks as though she uses it to refer to "Anon Guests" and to LR (Lupis Rex?). Are not personal attacks on members, ie name calling, dissallowed under the rules of conduct of the MudCat? It seems to me that personal atacks on "Guests", if anything, is worse. The culture here seems to reward name calling, acrimony and attacks on "GUESTS" does anyone besides me see how wrong that is. In some cases it means heated attacks on some people who appear to me mentally ill. Insults and personal attacks on ANYONE, don't help to build a community. They do quite the opposite. I may be nice for some to have an entire group of people to "beat" when they get "uppity", but the practice demeans the MudCat and reflects badly upon all of the members. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 04 Mar 03 - 11:25 AM No Shambles, you aren't alone. Clearly there are others who share your views, and they have said so in this thread. I just posted to the "TECH: As Above So Below" thread the following remarks on the subject, which certainly bears repeating in this thread where it is happening with an alarming frequency: "I see a serious problem still with Joe and clones making "editorial" attacks on individual users of the forum, whether members or guests. I also see a serious problem with clones masquerading as guests to post personal attacks on forum users. If forum maintainers behaved like that in the business and education discussion forums I'm in, they certainly wouldn't be forum maintainers or administrators for long. It is completely unprofessional." " |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 04 Mar 03 - 09:12 AM Wait till they come for you.......*Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Ralphie Date: 04 Mar 03 - 08:16 AM Shambles To answer your last question.... YES Regards Ralphie But, I do appreciate and support your stance on the PEL issue, as you know. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 04 Mar 03 - 07:44 AM The only dissenting voice was that of Shambles. Who just happened to be the originator of the thread and whoever that originator was, their views and wishes should be respected and perhaps their opinion could be sought before any action is taken? I did not ask for the thread to be linked to the other PEL threads, the linking just happened, following the fact that I had included it my thread with all the PEL links- fair enough. Jeri then decided it was a mistake and unlinked it. Following my comments, she very kindly re-linked it and now Big Brother Brown has decided to ignore all that and finally decide that it will be un-linked again...............And then accuses me of manipulation? This is a very small issue, does it really need to be treated in this heavy, unfriendly and plainly unecessary way? Max said. We are a group, a whole. We are together because we share at least some common interest. We may not all see eye to eye on everything, but the Mudcat IS the sum of all its parts. I challenge you to make it work. Does this make me a brat then? Is anyone who does not agree with Joe, and by this apparently challenges his authority, a brat and to be treated as all the other brats are? Is this really the way to make Max's vision work? Then they came for me Am I really the only person who finds Joe's Big Brother - brown comments in this thread intrusive, offensive and unacceptable and completly at odds with the spirit of Mudcat and the thoughts and wishes of Max? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Nigel Parsons Date: 04 Mar 03 - 07:26 AM I've just also noted that posting to a BS thread, you automatically get 'jumped' back to the top of the main list, not the BS. As the message only jumps part way up some may think their post hasn't made it, and while they would spot that on re-entering the thread, and so not re-post, it is possible that someone might duplicate a Newly created BS thread when they don't spot it at the top of the list. Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Nigel Parsons Date: 04 Mar 03 - 07:22 AM The division seems to be working, in the last 40 minutes messages have been posted to 10 threads in the upper part, but this is the first in the BS. Possibly some may not have noticed the moving of the BS, as they use the same system I do of scrolling down until they reach a message already marked as read, and assume there is nothing new further down the page. Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 04 Mar 03 - 03:22 AM This was coloured Brown. As for "And then they came for me," you're right that it is applicable to PEL's, but it also applies to a much wider spectrum of situations. It gives great insight to German history, and it applies in a very frightening way to the USA Patriot Act and the "Homeland Security" legislation. It is certainly appropriate for it to be on your thread listing PEL links, but it will not be included in the PEL thread grouping. That decision is final. -Joe Offer- I think Joe that you have rather missed off of your list a rather important relevance that this particular thread has. But Jeri said, only in black and white. The thread that was grouped with PELs and was unlinked - well I did the un-link - it was fairly obvious to me that, while that thread could be related to PELs, it was also related to other issues going on. I watched that thread and the Help Forum (correcting mistakes is the reason it exists). Not one word. I'm just guessing, but I'd bet Joe never got a PM about it either. This silence led me to believe the un-linking was the right thing to do. The thread is now back in the group. ??? Is it re-linked or is un-linked again? And earlier (also in brown) One of the beauties of this place is its spontaneity, so I want to be careful not to exercise too much control -Joe Offer- Perhaps those who thought that they had read this thread can go back and see what (brown) additions have been made? Joe can you please decide if you are going to confine your personal views to the forum, as one of the lads, where they are not the FINAL word, or to your brown comments non-negotiable and intrusive 'Big Brother' role made after the event? I don't think that you can really expect us to accept that you can have it both ways. Or do you? Sounds like manipulation to me, a spoiled kid running to Mommy when Daddy's decision is unsatisfactory. I talked with Jeri about this, and we are in agreement. The decision is final, and the thread has been removed from the PEL group. The consensus in the thread in question was that it should not be included in the PEL group. The only dissenting voice was that of Shambles. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Mark Clark Date: 04 Mar 03 - 02:46 AM Very nice change guys. Thanks again for another job well done. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 04 Mar 03 - 02:11 AM In the meantime, if people are upset that I am exposing someone who is trying to make them look foolish, I am sure they will tell me. But I will still be attempting to stop these destructive acts at every opportunity. Not in my name please. Please finally accept that the intentionally destructive acts cause less real problems than the well-intentioned responses. If you do wish to do something in my name Please just IGNORE them? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 03 - 11:28 PM Its about time! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: *daylia* Date: 03 Mar 03 - 10:22 PM Never mind - I see now they did it themselves. Must be too tired to read properly - sorry bout that. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: *daylia* Date: 03 Mar 03 - 10:10 PM BTW - How did Janetryan's and Jack the Sailor's last posts end up on two threads at once (this one and the Mudcat Group Mind)???? A cyber-mystery perhaps? daylia |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jeri Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:57 PM Jack, you knee-jerked. You didn't read it so you wouldn't know, but the person who posted the message you quote from is absolutly right. Trolls are brats. Unfortunately, they've found a lot of other brats to play with. People who LOVE these stupid, painful flame games and never never NEVER know when to put a sock in it. For some, 2 or 3 years ago would have shown signs of an ability to learn or at least a willingness to forego personal jollies for the good of the group. Fat friggin' chance. Welcome to "Lord of the Flies." |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:46 PM I don't want people to troll for me. I certainly don't want to take the bait. I've started this new practice of skipping a post the minute I determine that it is a troll. For example I have read exactly this much of the previous thread. "No I am not the Janet Ryan who may or may not exist, I simply wanted to get your attention by using that name." That was enough to tell me that the person was not making an effort to communicate and thus was trying to waste my time and energy. So far the results are excellent, lower blood pressure, no grinding of teeth and no desire to lash out. Ahhhhhhhh, y'all should try it. Nine out of ten dentists recommed it. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: *daylia* Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:41 PM And I just noticed the little BS clicky at the top of the page - another brilliant idea! You guys are awesome - just had to say that! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: *daylia* Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:38 PM When I logged in after work tonight and started scrolling down the list of threads, I experienced a brief moment of rather intense disappointment as in Oh no! They've actually decided to delete all the BS!! *Whew* so glad that's not so! This change makes it a lot easier to find the threads I'm looking for. Great idea - and thanks so much to all the forum moderators for doing what you do. Now I'm off to listen to Homer, if Kat's link is up and running yet... Cheers! daylia |
| Share Thread: |