BS: Opening threads - a debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:17 AM

Q:   WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M:   Well, I was told outside that...
Q:   Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M:   What?
Q:   Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M:   Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q:   OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M:   Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q:   Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M:   Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q:   Not at all.
M:   Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:16 AM

http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:08 AM

Then what pray is preventing you?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 10:08 AM

Thank you Don, it is a little frustrating.

Shambles, it is not a personal judgement to say that there are too many topics in a post to debate at one time. A debate needs a topic. I'd be glad to debate them all with you, one at a time. If you're interested, let me know. If the conditions under which you are willing to debate include discussing all of the topics at once, then I am unable to do that. I'm not unwilling, I'm just not capable.

The only thing I ask is that you stop saying that no one is willing to debate, there are planty of us willing to debate.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 07:43 AM

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


Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 08:31 PM

I don't have anything against honest debate. I just don't believe you're honest and I don't believe one guy standing on a soapbox dodging rotten tomatoes contitutes a debate.

Perhaps if a certain few posters stopped only throwing rotten tomatoes - we could then have a debate here about the issues?

Can you accept that the attempt to hold this debate is to try to ensure that all posters on our forum continue to be able to have that choice? Rather than to have some of their anonymous volunteer fellow posters - who now feel themselves qualified - to make this choice for them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 07:26 AM

Pseudolus, I know how you feel my friend. Many of us have offered debate with the same degree of success (none).

Even when asked to choose a topic, the result is more cut'n paste, or more oblique and obtuse parables.

This is a lost cause. Shambles does not want to debate. He wants us all to agree with him, and rise up to Smite Joe and the clones, hip and thigh.

His is a biblical campaign, backed by faith (misguided) and righteous wrath. You might just as well try to debate existence with a brick wall.

I for one have had more than enough. The respect I once had for Shambles has been eroded out of existence, and I don't intend to read any more of his nonsense.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 06:37 AM

Good job I didn't mention the dirty knife

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5

The choice of what issue another posters chooses to debate or if they choose not to debate at all - is not one for me. There is no shortage of topics here. Just - it would appear - a shortage posters willing to debate them.

No shortage of those just posting personal judgements however.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 06:28 AM

Shambles meets someone who is more than happy to debate and and what does he do? Avoid any exchange of views like the plague.

Shambles - you treat so many of the rest of us with little respect in your responses to our posts. I am surprised you have the gall (no pun intended) to continue. You complain when people make flippant posts; you sidestep honest attempts at debate; if no-one posts you refresh the thread anyway, by repeating something you have already said.   

Following this thread is like watching Big Brother - mildly interesting at first as a piece of people watching, but quickly becomes obvious that it has no real substance and is trdious beyong belief. That is my personal judgement. Debate is not invited.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 06:14 AM

If you want to pick another topic, pick one but there are too many different ones in your last post.

It may be a fact that there many topics in my last post. It is a personal value judgement for you to state that there are TOO many. Too many for what?

Just as all the justifications listed and provided by the Head of the Mudcat Editing Team for their assumptions about another named poster's possible motives - are matters of personal taste and judgement.

We all make these judgements but posting only to express them is not helpful - for all that happens a response in kind. And volunteer fellow posters basing any selective imposed editing action upon these assumptions and personal judgements - whilst trying to maintain to our forum that there is no personal motivation for them - even less helpful.

More importantly - this judgement is not following Max's guidiance that he sees his role as only to facillitate.

From the first post in this thread.

Is this practice - and the current encouragement of the posting of only personal judgements of fellow posters by example – a really desirable example to now on our forum and if it is thought not to be – what (if anything) can be done by posters to our forum - to address it?

This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate. However, I suspect and fear that - (always assuming that this thread is not first subject to any imposed editing action) - it will not be too long before posts containing only personal judgements will appear in this thread. I will ignore these, not respond in kind and try to debate the issue – hopefully other posters may also.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 03:25 PM

I offered a debate. You said that I could pick the topic. I did. the topic was "The Closing of the PEL threads". I realize you had other issues with the PEL threads. The only thing you said about the topic was that it wasn't an issue. This is not a personal judgement. If you want to pick another topic, pick one but there are too many different ones in your last post. A debate should have a topic. I'd like you to pick one or let's debate mine. There's a lot to choose from in your last post, just narrow it down to one.


Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 02:49 PM

Listen you bloody lot, either we play this game by my rules, or we don't play at all; RIGHT!!!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 02:22 PM

Your only response to MY choice was that the renaming of the threads was never the issue.

Your response was just what we are not short of - yet another personal judgement that will not add to the debate or provide a solution.

And no that was not my only response. The issue around the PEL threads remains the way they and the issue itself were used at the time as an excuse for posturing by some of our volunteer fellow posters. And for which dubious purpose they still are being used.

The issue is the assumptions that were made at that time and listed by this fellow poster here - about another poster's possible motivations. And the paranoid judgements behind the limited imposed editing actions and the effect of these personal value judgements upon what even the fellow poster making them agrees was a perfectly valid issue for our forum. Assumptions, suspicions and judgements that four years later are still providing the justification for the selective imposed editing of my contributions.

Does the fact that a person expressing a valid view that you agree with - maybe thought to be a rough cove with suspect motivations - likely on its own to result in you disagreeing with this view?

Or does the person expressing this view have to be thought a perfectly respectable character - before you feel you can agree?

Or is always the view that matters more than the assumed personality of the person expressing the view?

You may not like the look of Bob Geldof and you may not like him swearing at you and demanding that you send some money and you may think there is a better way. But your assumptions about his possible motives are not really likely to stop you caring about scenes of children starving to death. Unless perhaps you wish to use this as some form of excuse or justification for not caring or Bob Geldof makes you feel guilty or perhaps even a little jealous?

The bottom line is that the PEL issue was and still remains a serious concern to many. I feel that it should have just been recognised as that and not personalised in the way that it was and used as justification for a campaign and exercise in control over the postings of another poster.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 10:43 AM

See what happens when you go away for the weekend?

OK, you said that I could pick the topic. I picked the renaming of the PEL threads. It was MY choice, you said it was. Your only response to MY choice was that the renaming of the threads was never the issue. Well, it WAS the issue of the debate. Care to join me or should we move on to another topic of YOUR choice?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 06:51 PM

I saw the following description and thought that it might be the sort of village that Jeri was referring to.

Deep in the Peak District, towards the north of England, is the village of Royston Vasey, a seemingly picturesque spot but one populated by dangerous lunatics, social misfits, sinister grotesques and psychopaths. A sign reads 'Welcome to Royston Vasey. You'll Never Leave!'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/l/leagueofgentleme_66602120.shtml

You are right - there is nothing like this village in Dorset...Thankfully.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Blowzabella
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 06:09 PM

I'm puzzled now, Shambles...are you describing life in Dorset? Cos I went there for my holidays and had a lovely time. Perhaps I got off lightly!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 06:07 PM

Ho, hum...just dropped in after a week or two to see if anything new had been added. No.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 05:51 PM

Meanwhile - elsewhere in the village.

Into this malevolent melting-pot arrives young Benjamin, who has arranged to meet a friend for a walking holiday in the area. Unfortunately, Benjamin's friend has met a sticky end at the hands of Tubbs and Edward, and Benjamin is forced to stay longer than planned with his aunt and uncle, Harvey and Val Denton, a toad-obsessed couple given to pathological cleaning bouts and living by petty, but unbreakable rules. Benjamin is virtually held prisoner in the Dentons' home, reeling from one humiliation to another and increasingly terrified by their daughters Chloe and Radcliffe, sinister twins who simultaneously speak the same lines and seem able to read minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 04:57 PM

I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run. (Shambles)

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 04:35 PM

Roger, just one more time: Your posted words were not changed. The title was amplified .

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 01:07 PM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.
Max RE: Explain the BS rules 26 Oct 99

When Max explains to our forum something different to the above - I will expect the posting of BS on our forum to be undertaken on a different basis to what he has stated here.

Is it really too much to expect - unless your permission is first sought and given - that your own posted words remain as posted on our discussion forum? Or is this too much and thought to be trying to run Max's website for him?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 10:27 AM

I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run. (Shambles)

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 07:50 AM

I'd think the odds are high that not every single comment made in brown text (etc.) reflects exactly how Max himself might have done something (and Max might have been more or less polite for all I know). To suggest it would be, to me would be like thinking a shop assistant may have dealt in every case with customers exactly as the owner of the shop would. It's not (to me) really likely.

I believe what you look at is an overall satisfaction and I would assume for example that as Joe Offer has an edit button that there is general satisfacion in his carrying out of duties from Max.

Jon- As assumptions are the mother of all cock-ups - it is is safer for us never to assume anything. I am guided by the words of the sites owner expressed publicly on our forum and copied in this thread.

I have also contacted Max to express my appreciation for the part The Mudcat played (and is still playing) in the struggle to ensure that the right of everyone to freely express themselves musically is established in legislation here. Max did not respond with the sort of personal judgements, assumptions and accusations that we see here from some of our volunteer fellow posters. An attitude based on a lack of real information of the subject and one that has sadly become identified in many poster's minds with the PEL issue on our forum. A sad fact to be regretted and one which has not helped anyone.

It is difficult to see how any struggle for freedom of expression anywhere can now be debated or assisted on our forum when obtaining freedom of expression itself here is subject to the personal tastes of some of our fellow posters.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 08:32 AM

Ready to gybe? .......... Gybe O!!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 08:14 AM

It was rather like a group of nosy neighbours getting themselves all indignant about matter that were none of their concern and deciding that 'something' must be done and getting someone to feel that they must be the one to be seen to do something.

The above was in reference to the PEL threads.

What exactly were the crimes that required someone to be feel they needed to be seen to be doing 'something' about? Let us look at the accusations.

That I was the first poster to attempt to use the Forum Menu as a platform for expression?

I was attempting nothing other than to post to our forum. But if there was an attempt to use our Forum Menu as a platform for free expression – would that be a crime or such a terrible thing to attempt?

That I was 'working hard to ensure that several PEL threads were on the forum at the same time? That I would refresh several PEL threads, all with the same lengthy message, to keep 'MY' PEL campaign in the people's eye.

While it may have appeared that the PEL threads were the same – there were many different aspects and many posters started threads on what they saw as these different aspects (as is their right). My intention was to try ensure that any poster who was interested – was provided with the information in as few threads as possible and to cause as little irritation to those posters who may have not been interested.

As all of the threads were clearly titled – it is difficult to see why anyone should feel irritated. I have no wish to do this as it is not possible for me (or anyone else) to control the posting habits of others but where the threads subjects overlapped – I did try to ensure that all the relevant information was available. It seems to be a difficult concept for some on forum to grasp – but every time you post to a thread – it refreshes it. Is contributing to a thread that our volunteer fellow posters don't wish you to – now a crime or such a terrible thing to attempt.

That I even started threads that had the sole purpose of directing people to other PEL threads. That I worked hard to fight for "turf" on the Forum Menu, making sure his PEL campaign stood out above all other topics of discussion.

Had I done these things – would this have been a crime or such a terrible thing to attempt? Is there not enough room on our forum for all of this – without a fellow poster feeling they had to be seen to be making imposed judgements and confusing their personal motivations and personalising the important issue at the heart of all this?

That 'MY' PEL campaign was a very worthy cause, but my technique got to be too much. That I was flooding the Forum with words, crowding out others who weren't so wordy. That I often titled threads with deceptive titles like the ones you find in virus and advertising e-mails - the ones that try to trick you into opening them.

Too much for whom ? Had I done these things – would this have been a crime or such a terrible thing to attempt for what is accepted as being such a worthy cause?

That a number of things were done to hold me back a bit, since I didn't seem to be able to control myself. His PEL threads were given PEL tags, and they were crosslinked so he wouldn't need to keep repeating things that people could easily find in other threads.

There was very little imposition as they was never any need. For the use of threads clearly titled PELs was welcome – if only to prevent some posters from feeling that they were justified in complaining about what their fellow posters contributed – rather than just being told by our volunteers to ignore them and control their own posts.


Is it really such a concern to have more than one thread on the same or similar subjects? What is the harm in having many – if that is what posters to our forum want? For it is obvious that if they didn't want this – the situation would not occur. Max has publicly stated that sees his role on our forum as to facilitate the poster's wishes. Why do our volunteers now seem to see their role as to sit in judgement upon every aspect of the postings and assumed motives of their fellow posters and feel themselves qualified to do this? All supposedly for the benefit of our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 05:50 AM

I think Shambles is taking inspiration from the remak by ??? [possibly Disraeli] "Every time the English find the answer to the Irish question, the Irish change the question"
I believe you live around the Portland area Roger so let me just say one word, RABBITS!!

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 05:22 AM

""It was rather like a group of nosy neighbours getting themselves all indignant about matter that were none of their concern and deciding that 'something' must be done and getting someone to feel that they must be the one to be seen to do something.""

Nope! It was rather like the owner of a website shedding some of the load by appointing representatives to act in his behalf, supervised by him.

It's called delegation of authority, and many senior people use it to enable themselves to have some free time.

I think it self evident that the owner is satisfied with the manner in which he is being represented.

Bottom line? IT'S HIS BUSINESS.

And would you for Christ's sake stop insulting our intelligence by using parables as if you were talking to a class of six year olds?

We understand what you say (well, the more comrehensible bits), we just DON'T agree.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 02:24 AM

And a few more villagers.

A scenario like Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? is played out by married couple Stella and Charlie, who use their prospective son-in-law Tony as a pawn in their ongoing bitter war of words. Then there's Barbara Dixon, the local minicab driver, midway through a sex change (from male to female) and more than willing to share the visceral details of his/her operations with passengers. Seemingly the most normal of the residents is Les McQueen, one-time member of the progressive rock group Creme Brulée, now sadly reliving his past glories (which certainly do not seem that glorious) while dreaming of renewed stardom. Although not local, the touring community theatre group Legz Akimbo, with their dreadful stage productions, demonstrate enough angst to blend in perfectly, and another visitor is the German tour operator Herr Lipp, an oily individual who makes homosexual advances and mouths crude double entendres.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 03:52 PM

A few more villagers.

Elsewhere, there is the butcher Hilary Briss, whose under-the-counter sales of 'special stuff' feeds the habits of certain carnivores in the village, especially those people in authority (Councilman Samuel Chignell being a regular customer). Then there's vet Matthew Chinnery, cursed with an uncanny ability to accidentally yet gruesomely slaughter any animals under his 'care'. There's job-restart officer Pauline, whose contempt of her unemployed charges is obvious and vindictive. More venom is dolled out (beneath a veneer of politeness) by Mrs Judee Levenson and her cleaning lady Iris Krell, each taunting the other: Mrs Levenson with tales of her luxury lifestyle, Iris with lurid stories of her sex life. Al and Rich are the dominated sons of hideous, violent Pop, a Greek immigrant who has built a tiny news-stand empire.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 03:46 PM

OK, the subject is mine. I think I'll talk about the renaming of the PEL threads.I read the post from Joe that you included in your last post and the reasoning behind the renaming of those threads is very understandable to me. Some of us don't have the time to go through all of the threads so a clear understanding of what's inside helps me decide which threads to look at. Living where I do, I am not affected by that issue so I would seldom open those threads. It's not that I don't empathize but with the limited time that I have, I would select another topic. I would assume that you would want people who are interested in the subject to be the ones opening and contributing to the threads. To me, it was a win-win bringing those interested in, and keeping those not interested out.

On the information available to you - that is an understandable position and a common sense one that if taken at the time by some of your fellow posters - would have prevented any of the very little imposition that did take place in PEL threads. For in all truth any problems around the issue were largely sorted-out by the posters themselves.

But would you accept that stating such imposition may be understandable to you – is a judgement that will not change anything or make anyone - who has actually been the victim of such imposition and who does not judge it to be understandable – feel any better? That may well be your intention – it does appear the intention of others. However, more importantly it does not prevent any more such needless disagreements in the future.

For the re-naming of these threads for practical purposes was not the issue then or now - the issue remains one of some posters judging and imposing their tastes upon the contributions of the fellow posters. You can see some of the assumptions about another poster's motives that these personal judgements were made on. How can anyone know such things about their fellow posters and why should any such groundless speculations form any basis for imposed editing action on our discussion forum?   

For the judgmental attitude then and now that is engendered by our volunteer fellow posters - rather encourages the idea that if something that a fellow poster contributed was not to their taste or has angered or irritated in some way - that it was up to them to make a fuss. And to try and to control the postings of others. Rather than just ignoring it – and being encouraged to accept that it was none of their business and the only real control that any posters has (or should have) – is over their own posts.

It was rather like a group of nosy neighbours getting themselves all indignant about matter that were none of their concern and deciding that 'something' must be done and getting someone to feel that they must be the one to be seen to do something.

Is it really too much to expect - unless your permission is first sought and given - that your own posted words remain as posted on our discussion forum? Or is this too much and thought to be trying to run Max's website for him?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 04:23 PM

Just to let you know, I'm heading out of town for the weekend so I may not be able to respond to you until then but I look forward to your response.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 12:44 PM

OK, the subject is mine. I think I'll talk about the renaming of the PEL threads. I read the post from Joe that you included in your last post and the reasoning behind the renaming of those threads is very understandable to me. some of us don't have the time to go through all of the threads so a clear understanding of what's inside helps me decide which threads to look at. Living where I do, I am not affected by that issue so I would seldom open those threads. It's not that I don't empathize but with the limited time that I have, I would select another topic. I would assume that you would want people who are interested in the subject to be the ones opening and contributing to the threads. To me, it was a win-win bringing those interested in, and keeping those not interested out.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 12:21 PM

I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run. (Shambles)

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: jeffp
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 12:05 PM

Have fun, Frank.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:35 AM

WHIPLASH!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:12 AM

There are enough people left though, who support him by providing him inspiration to keep going. More like a village than a city. Everybody knows "it takes a village..." But we HAVE that village here!

A village like this one?

Deep in the Peak District, towards the north of England, is the village of Royston Vasey, a seemingly picturesque spot but one populated by dangerous lunatics, social misfits, sinister grotesques and psychopaths. A sign reads 'Welcome to Royston Vasey. You'll Never Leave!'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/l/leagueofgentleme_66602120.shtml


Frank - as you said there are a range of points for debate contained here. You have chosen to post and ignore them all. The choice of which subject to debate or indeed to ignore will remain yours not mine. But how would you consider that this choice of yours can best be ensured and facililated on our forum - free of the following assumptions and personal jugements being imposed in the following example?

Judgements made in this example - like "going overboard" "tantrums" "control" "fighting for turf" etc are all just personal opinions based on assumptions about the possible motivations of fellow posters. Grounds for posting to disagree but never grounds alone to impose editing action. For in this case all of these paranoid suspicions listed were groundless anyway and as they are used for justification - say a lot about some of our volunteer's mistaken idea that they have been appointed by Max as judge and jury over their fellow posters..

For if you read it carefully - you will find that the essence of this is really just one of taste - of one poster judging the personal style or "technique" of another and imposing that judgement. The PEL issue should not have been judged and personalised as being mine by our volunteers in the way demonstrated. There was never any need for it to be judged at all.

Some of our volunteers feel that they are entitled publicly do this and be the final arbiter on difficult concepts like - when things are to be considered as "too much" etc. Our volunteers imposing their personal judgement on the postings of others is justified in this example on the grounds that this was to protect other less wordy posters from being "crowded out". Given its format -is it really possible to crowd any one out on our forum?   

Subject: (thread title change complaint)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 10 Aug 05 - 01:19 PM

Well, I suppose it depends on what you think of the Forum Menu. Shambles believes in a right to free speech - and I think most of us do. He thinks that the Forum Menu is a vehicle for self-expression and that the right of free speech should extend to the Forum Menu, and I think the Forum Menu is merely an index.

Shambles is a pioneer here, because he was one of the very first to attempt to use the Forum Menu as a platform for expression. When he started his PEL campaign in 2001, he worked hard to ensure that several PEL threads were visible on the Forum Menu at any given time. He'd refresh several PEL threads, all with the same lengthy message, to keep his PEL campaign in the people's eye. He even started threads that had the sole purpose of directing people to other PEL threads. He worked hard to fight for "turf" on the Forum Menu, making sure his PEL campaign stood out above all other topics of discussion.

His PEL campaign was a very worthy cause, but his technique got to be too much. He was flooding the Forum with words, crowding out others who weren't so wordy. He often titled threads with deceptive titles like the ones you find in virus and advertising e-mails - the ones that try to trick you into opening them.

So, a number of things were done to hold Shambles back a bit, since he didn't seem to be able to control himself. His PEL threads were given PEL tags, and they were crosslinked so he wouldn't need to keep repeating things that people could easily find in other threads.

So, yes, many of the Shambles threads were retitled - they had a PEL tag added to them. Some (but not most) of the lengthy duplicate messages he posted were deleted - but one copy of each message was always left intact, and only the duplicates were deleted.

Shambles went overboard, and kept on going overboard for months. Finally, he was subjected to a few controls - although not one of his words was deleted unless it was a duplicate of another statement he posted.

So,Shambles has been having a tantrum since 2001. And as he went overboard on the PEL campaign and actually served to make his issue look ridiculous by the outrageous quantity and exaggeration of his remarks, he also does the same with his campaign against the editing work done at Mudcat. Gee, he even compares me to Hitler, and that's SO unfair. I have much nicer facial hair.

So, that's the story.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 09:46 AM

Interesting tactics Shambles. To win the war....if you find yourself losing a battle, pick another battle.

OK, debate? If that's what you'd like, I'll entertain the debate. Pick a subject from the many listed in this thread that you do not think has been answered properly or at all. I'll debate you.

I am not in any way representing the Clones or Joe Offer (I can hear them breathing a sigh of relief now!) but I am willing to debate you one on one. So what exactly is our subject? I'm ready...

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 03:36 AM

So, yes, Shambles, I guess that's proof that you are sometimes able to drive our patient and friendly volunteers to distraction.
It takes a really obnoxious idiot to drive me to calling him such.
Are you proud of that?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 02:21 AM

Counsel M'lud the strange, damnable, almost diabolic threads of this extraordinary tangled web of intrigue will shortly m'lud reveal a plot so fiendish, so infernal, so heinous ...
Judge Mr Bartlett, your client has already pleaded guilty to the parking offence.


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.
Joe Offer

Has Max asked you to judge and call your fellow poster's names? What do you think will be the long-term effect of such an example now being set on our forum? Or is that not a concern?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 06:04 PM

300!

The devil made me do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 06:04 PM

299

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 05:44 PM

That anyone might do that does not make a lot of sense to me.

*Smiles*

None of this anonymous judgement, thread closing and other forms imposed editing makes any sense to me or appears to have any clear object - except parhaps to defend itself at all costs. Does any of this make any real sense to you?

Max has stated that his role is only to facilite - why do some of our volunteer posters now see their role as to insult their fellow posters? And impose their judgement upon (some of) their fellows on the slightest excuse and feel themselves qualified to do this?

But the question of how ordinary posters are supposed to know when a volunteer's views are their own and when they are official policy - remains unanswered. Perhaps it is best for them to assume that unless the words are Max's own - that all other views from fellow posters on our forum are as valid as each other - and are seen as just more personal opinions in a discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 05:13 AM

There may be some truth in some of this but the practical difficulty here - that you do not address - is when our anonymous fellow posters insist on their right to also express their persoanal view as well as claiming to be acting as Max's proxy.

How are their fellow posters to know when one of these anonymous fellow posters are speaking for Max - and with his authority - and when they are expressing their own view. A personal view that may well be totally different to Max's and being made in posts which can be retrieved at any time.

I think the answer to that is it is Max's problem (if indeed it is a problem - I don't believe the volunteers here are unreasonable).

I'd think the odds are high that not every single comment made in brown text (etc.) reflects exactly how Max himself might have done something (and Max might have been more or less polite for all I know). To suggest it would be, to me would be like thinking a shop assistant may have dealt in every case with customers exactly as the owner of the shop would. It's not (to me) really likely.

I believe what you look at is an overall satisfaction and I would assume for example that as Joe Offer has an edit button that there is general satisfacion in his carrying out of duties from Max.

The only other way I could read it would involve Max for one reason or other keeping people (he can grant or deny the edit powers) to upset him (or his wishes for the forum). That anyone might do that does not make a lot of sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 03:43 AM

Main Entry: pon·tif·i·cate
Pronunciation: pän-'ti-f&-"kAt
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin pontificatus, past participle of pontificare, from Latin pontific-, pontifex
1 a : to officiate as a pontiff b : to celebrate pontifical mass
2 : to speak or express opinions in a pompous or dogmatic way
- pon·tif·i·ca·tion /(")pän-"ti-f&-'kA-sh&n/ noun
- pon·tif·i·ca·tor /-"kA-t&r/ noun

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 02:23 AM

Let me say this about that:

295

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 02:16 AM

Thank you you for posting and refreshing this thread. It is perhaps a shame to post yet make no contribution to the debate and to rather carefully ignore the issues involved. Such posts do however ensure this thread goes back on the top and that others will be able to read it - and perhaps they will post and make a contribution. Hopefully this debate may help ensure that posters will still have that choice and not have some of their fellow posters make it for them.

Judge What do you mean, no further questions? You can't just dump a dead body in my court and say 'no further questions'. I demand an explanation.
Counsel There are no easy answers in this case m'lud.
Judge I think you haven't got the slightest idea what this case is about.
Counsel M'lud the strange, damnable, almost diabolic threads of this extraordinary tangled web of intrigue will shortly m'lud reveal a plot so fiendish, so infernal, so heinous ...
Judge Mr Bartlett, your client has already pleaded guilty to the parking offence.

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 08:10 PM

shamnbles-you post always rubbish, and moany shite, i bet you are a real miserable arseole, you are one of people that sit in park, or stand at bus stop, moaning all day, and make every body fed up.

if this was my webvsite=i would tell you to fucvk off ages ago, becase you moan too much, i would even make you banned, so your moans wouldent get printed, and serves you right.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 10:51 AM

I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 02:54 AM

"fellow posters" is totally incorrect and irrelavant when they are acting as proxies for Max. As it the term volunteer as they were all recruited by Max.

There may be some truth in some of this but the practical difficulty here - that you do not address - is when our anonymous fellow posters insist on their right to also express their persoanal view as well as claiming to be acting as Max's proxy.

How are their fellow posters to know when one of these anonymous fellow posters are speaking for Max - and with his authority - and when they are expressing their own view. A personal view that may well be totally different to Max's and being made in posts which can be retrieved at any time.

And like the following examples - these personal views are anonymously inserted into the existing posts of their fellow posters - without these poster's knowledge or permission.


The issue is not up for debate. Basaed on his repetitious postings The Shambles cannot seem to understand this. joe-clone
From Opening threads

Or from Max what about Shambles requests

Yes, Rog-o, as you can see it was redundant and covered by this thread. And no one was talking turds over there, so I exercised editorial control so that we can talk about turds. Stay on subject please. Mudelf

I am closing this. It is redundant and deals with the same issue as two other threads. It will just become another 1000 post thread with nothing new to add. Please use the existing threads.
Thanks, Mudelf

I see you have arrived first. Blessings upon you Mudelf....I have your back!.......FatClone


All posters are entitled to post their views but until there is another clear way of informing our forum exactly which hat is being worn - perhaps all personal views can be contained only in coventional posts using the volunteer poster's usual name - and not made anonymously?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 09:33 AM

For those who may have not read it - the following is from the first post in this thread.

As far as I am aware – no poster on our forum has ever been forced to open a thread.



Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:31 PM

The alteration it needs must occur in the minds of the folks that respond to this stuff. Roger is entitled to his opinion, and in virtually every posters response they have indicated they are tired of his restating the same thing over and over; they are tired of him twisting quotes to serve himself; they go on and on about how he goes on and on. Do you folks learn anything? Who is worse, Roger or you? The question to Roger about who is "we" has been asked over and over.

Roger isn't the problem anymore. Those that feed him are.

Mick

Every poster is entitled to their opinion on our forum. However, are they now entitled to try and prevent others from expressing theirs?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 07:24 PM

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:08 PM

Kendall - It is indeed long been clear that this site belongs to Max and I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run.


Then please stop posting your debate topics!(:<)) Nobody gives a shit Sham.....or is that a Shamshit?

Spaw