 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Jan 04 - 01:02 PM I think Kevin expressed an opinion in this thread that he also considered this to be wrong Sure I said I thought it was a mistake.I also said that it wasn't a mistake tat was too important. A sense of proportion in these things is needed. And, as your use of an attempted analogy about Rodney King getting beaten to a pulp perhaps implies, that is what seems to be lacking. ...... Here are some musical hamsters from Essex. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: Big Mick Date: 22 Jan 04 - 01:04 PM Folks, you may all do as you choose. It is my opinion that responding to Roger only feeds what he is after here. If you want to act in an "enabling" fashion, then by all means go on and continue the dialogue on the same old load of shite. If you are tired of this, then simply quit responding. Roger, please note that no one has shut down your thread, even though it is possible to do so. Please...........ramble on as long as you feel like doing so. I hope it is to an empty room. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: GUEST Date: 22 Jan 04 - 01:46 PM ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: The Shambles Date: 22 Jan 04 - 02:18 PM I think Kevin expressed an opinion in this thread that he also considered this to be wrong. Sure I said I thought it was a mistake.I also said that it wasn't a mistake tat was too important. Kevin - from the evidence of the post I referred to - I formed the opinion that you were not in agreement to the editing action taken on the personal judgement of the individual involved - that certain posts were political - I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression and did not notice your qualification. Subject: RE: Memorial Thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14-Nov-03 - 12:38 PM The post Gareth objected to there was a response to an earlier thread which politicised the thread just as much, but in a different direction. I sympathise with the idea of having a memorial thread that avoids avoids the politics but its a difficuot line tom thread. Any post that goes beyond paying respect, and starts expressing solidarity with the cause they were fighting for is making a political statement. Sometimes it's easier to recognise the political statements we disagree with than the ones we agree with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: Nigel Parsons Date: 22 Jan 04 - 09:10 PM Roger: The quote of Joe's that you use to justify your claims appears to be a "One off" and certainly fails to say what you seem to believe it says. Shambles can say whatever he likes about me, and it's very unlikely that his messages will be deleted - despite all his complaints about deletions, the only Shambles messages that get deleted are the duplicate ones he posts in two or three locations. I may not like what he has to say and I may be convinced that he's an idiot and a troll - but at least he has the courage to use his own identity when he speaks, and I respect that. So Joe has said (a) "I may be convinced that he's an idiot and a troll". Had Joe said (b)"I am convinced Shambles is an idiot" that would have been a little more serious. Had he said (c) "Shambles is an idiot" that would have been stronger still. However, what he has said is that he "may be convinced". Are you really trying to do all that you can to convince him? Statement (a)suggests an openness to persuasion Statement (b)states a personal opinion Statement (c)could be considered offensive Nigel (not a protector of the 'Witchfinder' as I don't believe he needs it) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: Jeri Date: 22 Jan 04 - 10:05 PM Anybody who wants to be a Witchfinder should be taking notes on Roger's tactics, anyway. Other skills include namecalling and not minding his own business. I think he's projecting. Joe doesn't have the monomania, the need to 'get' somebody and the lack of respect for others (including believing they're sheep who need examples to follow) that are required to be a decent Witchfinder General. He really sucks at... shall we call it 'embellishing the truth'? (Sorry, Joe.) Roger's out to get Joe, plain and simple. Would anyone like to guess how long Roger and Co have kept this going round in circles? The first thread I remember was the "Minding Your Own Business" one in the Help forum. It was started on 7 March 2003. There may have been something earlier - I'm not sure. I have no clue how y'all can enjoy the same argument for that long. It boggles the mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: Amos Date: 22 Jan 04 - 10:09 PM It goes back a good deal futhah than thet, Jeri. When I first come onboard the 'Cat it was going on then. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 22 Jan 04 - 10:25 PM SHambels-wHy donty you just shut up, and stop picking on JOe, and go and play some music? [this is music site, not moaning site.john |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: Cluin Date: 22 Jan 04 - 11:37 PM That'll do, donkey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: Big Mick Date: 23 Jan 04 - 12:44 AM Jeri, I did a search on all his posts. He has been pulling this same old shit since 1999. And if you check the Euro Folk.net, he does the same thing there, except that Dick Gaughan is his target. As I said, we simply feed his psychosis when we debate with him. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 23 Jan 04 - 12:49 AM hello, mick-i think mr shambles is a mad person, and he probably tok too many drugs in the 60's, and they all messed his head up, i know somebody like that, he's called Mad Pete, he did loads of drugs in the sixties, and he thinks every body is looking at him, and talking about him, and picking on him etc, but they arent, hes just mad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: The Shambles Date: 23 Jan 04 - 02:28 AM The Memorial thread link you referred us to, Shambles, does not serve your agenda well. It very clearly shows a thinking Joe Offer trying to establish and maintain coherent ground rules with the help of others' input; it does not come close to showing an arbitrary authoritarian. That is a matter of opinion - I posted it to demonstrate a fact that the same mistakes are just repeated. Why was the Guest Posting thread closed? Who did it and why did they not use the so-called correct procedure when exactly this same mistake was made earlier over The Memorial thread? The claim Joe and Co are doing a good job is well-supported. That Joe and Co intend to a good job is also accepted by me. These are opinions - largely based on the fact that they are fine well-intentioned folk - which I also accept. The real questions are: What exactly is that job? How can the effectiveness be evaluated? How can you decide when censorship goes over the line - when then is no line? Is it really helpful to anyone that those who would volunteer to censor our contributions to our forum - are shown to be receiving uncritical support - based on the belief that they are doing a good (if undefined) job - rather than any evidence of a focused and organised system. The old chestnut about name-calling abusive postings is a nonsense when the volunteers themselves are PROVED to indulge in the same thing and create the example of a double standard and actually encourage this name-calling agaist selected targets - for example - Forums Discussion Groups If that is the purpose of this policing - can it be proved to have succeeded? My 'agenda' supported by the evidence that I will continue to supply and much evidence that I will not be aware of and that others may be - is that this system is not working as it is claimed and defended by many and that it is a cock-up - badly in need of an objective review - not that evil folk are conspiring together. If folk wish to supply evidence that proves that the current system of censorship - on the grounds of an individual volunteer's personal taste - is successful in causing anything other than yet nore division, bad feeling and threats - then please produce this evidence in support of your opinion that Joe and Co ARE in fact doing a good job. This system was set-up in response to some ill-defined outside threat to - take over The Mudcat. It responds to even the mildest criticsm as if this were this attempt. It is just time to stop and examine what exactly the function of the volunteers should be and how this can be tightened - up to protect contributors from them. Is this system so perfect that it cannot be improved? Even its most vocal supporters accept that mistakes are being made - but seem to accept these - as long as they affect someone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Jan 04 - 02:49 AM Evidence that Joe & Jeff & Co. are doing a good job:
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 23 Jan 04 - 02:53 AM shambles-why donyt yoo just shut uip? you moan too much, ok if your thresd gets detekewd, son wht! you are lucky, you got warm house, food to eat, and i guess yoiu got a decent job, [you can afford internet etc], plenty peoplr dont have this= did you reelise that 1/3rd of the worlds population don't know where theree next meal is comoing from? and loads of proplke in jail for there political/religous beliefs? and you bloody moaning because joe deleted one of yoyr threads! just grow up, and put it in perspecitive! its just a website! if your thread gets deleted it DOESENT MATTER! you wont anser me, but never mind, just think anout it! you soundiong like a little kid, "its not fair, joe is picking on me etc"! I dont like little kids, my cousin got one, sjhe says "john , look after my little daughter, while i go bingo" I said "bloody no chance, your kid, you look after it, litle kids moan too much, "i want ice cream, i want postman pat video, i want sweets etc etc" "i want, never gets, piss off litle kid" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: The Shambles Date: 23 Jan 04 - 06:04 AM Need I say more? -Joe Offer- Yes please Joe - this will do for a start. Why was the Guest Posting thread closed? Who did it and why did they not use the so-called correct procedure when exactly this same mistake was made earlier over The Memorial thread? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: Nigel Parsons Date: 23 Jan 04 - 06:18 AM Sorry to muddy the waters with facts, but I've just posted to Guest Postings It does not appear to be closed at all. Possibly Roger misread the post above mine in that thread Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: Catherine Jayne Date: 23 Jan 04 - 06:21 AM I, and a number of other people requested that the thread was closed. Shambles, you took over the thread in what seemed as a personal vendetta (and before you criticise my spelling I know already know its bad) The original matter in the thread has been delt with and everyone, apart from yourself of course, is happy with it. Life is too short for all your complaining, you really need to get out more, play more music and relax. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: Amos Date: 23 Jan 04 - 07:46 AM Perhaps a hobby.....a torrid affair... a new pet... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: The Shambles Date: 23 Jan 04 - 10:13 AM I am trying hard to focus on the important issue of censorship on our forum and to avoid reacting to the reaction. For it matters little if the questions that I am asking are coming from and eight-armed Woggle from the planet Plod intent on invading the Earth and high on the best 'Old Toby'. It is what is being said that is important - not who may be saying it. If it is being said in a moderate manner - I feel that this should be respected and responses should also be made in this manner. Sorry to muddy the waters with facts, but I've just posted to Guest Postings It does not appear to be closed at all. Nigel - I hope you are not now trying to get us to believe that the Guest Postings thread was never closed - for I do beleive it was you who earlier posted to inform me that it had been re-opened? I, and a number of other people requested that the thread was closed. Shambles, you took over the thread in what seemed as a personal vendetta (and before you criticise my spelling I know already know its bad) The original matter in the thread has been delt with and everyone, apart from yourself of course, is happy with it. Life is too short for all your complaining, you really need to get out more, play more music and relax. In that thread I also expressed a wish that the thread NOT be closed as there was no good reason to do so. As has been pointed out - this is not a democracy - we do not have a vote - so every voice is worth no more or no less than everyone else's. As for the convention of respecting the original poster's intention - I feel that many people were doing just that - for as I have pointed out before and you fail to mention here - the original posting also asked for suggestions on how things could be improved. Closing the thread would deny any future posters the chance to make these suggestions. You may well now be happy that Joe having wrongly accused you of posting abusive anonymous messages - will not do this again to you. I am just trying to do what I can - to ensure that such things do not happen again to anyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: The Shambles Date: 24 Jan 04 - 06:16 AM For the sake of completeness. Shambles, can you help? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: GUEST Date: 24 Jan 04 - 08:09 AM "It is what is being said that is important - not who may be saying it." --The Shambles, 23 Jan 04 - 10:13 AM Hear hear, The Shambles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Jan 04 - 03:51 PM "I am trying hard to focus on the important issue of censorship on our forum" Focusing might be better achieved, Riger, if you did this within a thread (or a series of threads) actually dedicated to the discussion of this issue, rather than broadcsting your comments, fairly randomly, in threads about other stuff. And maybe you could supplement that by sticking a link to the censorshop discussion thread in a post in those other threads, when that seemed relevant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jan 04 - 08:46 AM Focusing might be better achieved, Riger, if you did this within a thread (or a series of threads) actually dedicated to the discussion of this issue, rather than broadcsting your comments, fairly randomly, in threads about other stuff. And maybe you could supplement that by sticking a link to the censorshop discussion thread in a post in those other threads, when that seemed relevant. It may also be helped if you could address it rather than commenting on how and where I post my views - which is rather a matter for me. You also know full well that these are not posted randomly. For Kevin - I have tried to take your advice - perhaps you have forgotten? There are links to this thread as this thread was up and running and seemed to be better than starting yet another one - which others would have considered to be the wrong thing. You have already posted here to suggest a new title for this thread so I feel that I have done all that you have asked. Perhaps you could now just post to address the issue rather than 'hijacking' this one for you own agenda? *smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is the Mudcat overpoliced? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jan 04 - 12:20 PM I have commented on the actual issues, saying that I disagree with the significance you place on what I regard as relatively minor incidents, that I am satisfied with the way Joe and the others carry out the tasks which they have volunteered to do, and that my answer to the question posed in the modified thread heading above is "No". Commenting on "where" and "how" opinions are posted is as much a matter for other people as commenting on the opinions themselves. In certain circumstances we have the right to say "I wish you would shut up," ("where"), and also the right to comment on the manner of someone's discourse ("how"). That is a reasonable exercise of free speech, and it does not interfere with the reasonable exercise of right of free speech by the other person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jan 04 - 03:18 PM I have commented on the actual issues, saying that I disagree with the significance you place on what I regard as relatively minor incidents, that I am satisfied with the way Joe and the others carry out the tasks which they have volunteered to do, and that my answer to the question posed in the modified thread heading above is "No". The problem when you should dare to claim that Joe and Co are not operating as they claim they are doing is that you are asked to provide evidence - and when you do provide that evidence is is dismissed as minor. Bill D in one of his posts claimed that allowing just one abusive post was one too many. The evidence I have provided is just what I have come across - I am sure there is much more but it is enough to demonstrate and support my claim. The question is not really if our forum is over-policed but if it needs to be policed at all. Or how can you prevent our forum from becoming over-policed? I would suggest that uncritical praise and support - in the face of the evidence provided and minimising this evidence - is not the way this is done. The signifigance of the evidence provided is that it IS evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 04 - 03:30 PM Shambles: No. We're done, as I mentioned earlier. I have withdrawn my agreement with you concerning Joe's statement that he might possibly harbor the opinion that you were an idiot. Your version of debate is time-consuming, counter-productive and personally painful because of the passive-aggressive style of it. So I am not engaging in that sort of reaction, and I seriously hope that others will not either, because it is not debate in the usual sense. IF you think I am idiot enough to stand still for that sort of underhanded abrasion, you have another think due, chum. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jan 04 - 08:35 PM "...that evidence is is dismissed as minor..." Precisely so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: The Shambles Date: 26 Jan 04 - 01:54 AM "...that evidence is is dismissed as minor..." Precisely so Perhaps it would not seem quite so minor if you were the one being accused by our volunteers of making abusive anonymous postings. Or were having your posts censored or threads closed - for no good reason and without the correct so-called reporting system being followed. What evidence would YOU require to demontstate that the present 'system' is a free-for-all and a cock-up? What evidence can you provide to ensure us that we are safe from an increase in the current unnaccountable judgement and censorship of our postings to our forum by a select few? Or perhaps would you wish to join this judgemental few? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread From: GUEST,TTCM Date: 26 Jan 04 - 04:36 PM Yes, Justapicker, you're definately a hypocrite. |