 sj |
||
|
||
Thread Proliferation Control
|
|
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: TIA Date: 04 Mar 03 - 10:33 PM Been gone a couple days...EEEEEExcellent! |
|
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: 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: Amos Date: 04 Mar 03 - 11:42 PM Nicely said, Joe. A |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:57 PM "in front"falling over writing"not falling over writing. |
|
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: 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: Blackcatter Date: 05 Mar 03 - 10:43 PM oh my goodness - this is now a tech thread! |
|
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: 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: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:08 PM it doesent work! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:30 PM sure it does John This is what I wrote to get the above (without the " ") "sure it does John" If you want it bold you do this: "If you want it bold you do this:" HTML instructions are placed between brackets < > you put an i in it for italics, a b for bold, etc. to stop the italics, you put a / in front of the i to tell it to stop. Now let's hope all of that worked . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:36 PM oops practicing HTML under the influence of Isle of Jura single malt - yeesh. once more unto the breech sure it does John This is what I wrote to get the above (without the " ") ""sure it does John"" If you want it bold you do this: ""If you want it bold you do this:"" |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:38 PM screw it |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:44 PM John, Blackcatter, check this first posting out. It's got all kinds of fun things to try: html thread. And, don't forget, it's okay to find an old html practice thread to try things out, or start a new one.:-) Have fun! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: NicoleC Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:07 AM Hmm. Looks like the Mudcat window doesn't support a preformatted tag. Try here instead: Basic HTML Commands |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control (Tech Sidetrack) From: GUEST,Dale Date: 06 Mar 03 - 02:29 AM Tell you what. Every thing I know about HTML, I learned years ago from George Seto ~~ Right here. Simple, concise, and to the point. I would recommend that you don't use the BLINK command though. Gets rather tiresome in short order. Check out the rest of George's site while you are there. WORTHWHILE. Darn, don't think he's got a link back to the front door on that page. So here it is. And now, back to the top section. Oh, before I go, I think the thread arrangement was an extraordinary way to solve something that has been a problem for years. Don't see why it shouldn't make virtually everyone happy. There is bound to be a gray area as to what belongs where, but that is just one of those things to live with, not whine about. (See? letters falling over even as they get bolder than the rest.) |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:09 AM <i>this part will be leaning over</i> like this this part will be leaning over |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:11 AM I can do it big and red, too! <font color=Black> <i>this part will be leaning over</i><br> </font> |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:19 AM well...almost...lets see if I did it this time <i>this part will be leaning over</i> I don't 'do' anything except use this little program....read and be amazed....sHTML-from a guy in Denmark |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:24 AM the deal is, to show the angle brackets without actually making them work, you have to enter all those ampersands and semicolons and such... and I am too lazy to memorize it all, so the program does it for me..(IF I have the right stuff on my clipboard..*grin*) |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:46 AM Don't see why it shouldn't make virtually everyone happy. There is bound to be a gray area as to what belongs where, but that is just one of those things to live with, not whine about. Amen to that.............. How about it Joe? With Jeff's changes, are you now going to trust the posters to exert self-control or just carry on with your personal whines to justify your ill-starred Thread Proliferation Control and witch hunts? As far as policy on specific types of humor, the only rule is "no personal attacks." As for starting threads, the rule-of-thumb is that only one thread on any given topic should be active at any given time. If there are 15 Iraq threads on the Forum Menu today, some are going to be consolidated. Five is tolerable. Fifteen is ridiculous. Yes, you're encouraged to add to existing threads. But refreshing sixteen Shatner threads or twenty Iraq threads is not going to make people happy. We want people to be happy here... -Joe Offer- The key to the above being 'rule-of-thumb'. Not enforced with an 'iron rule'. If you really want this person to be happy, and it is not all that difficult, will you please exert a little self-control and leave things well alone? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Amos Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:57 AM ill-starred Thread Proliferation Control and witch hunts Roger, you're being patently unfair. Joe has not been hunting for witches, and his TPC guidelines seem to be workable enough. Consolidating like threads as an administrative action is an intelligent thing to do. Removing slanderous ad hominem attacks is a decent thing to do. Slamming the volunteers who are working to keep this place alive is not either. So what is the problem in specific, really? A |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: JennyO Date: 06 Mar 03 - 12:31 PM Hey I never knew about this before! Jenny |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:09 PM Way to go, Jenny O! Roger, how about you take your own advice: will you please exert a little self-control and leave things well alone? Joe hasn't done anything like what you are characterising over the past few days and like I said, you certainly remember how to beat something into the ground. Here's a little diversion for you: Oh, Spawdarlin'...how about you and I run away to the back garden with the faeries, kick up some litter, and carry on some lovestruck caterwaulin'? C'mon, Peaches, baby...it'll be entertaining and fun! cynicalol'kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 06 Mar 03 - 02:56 PM Amos I would hope that a good re-read of this thread will demonstrate where the unfairness lies. It is the 'heavy touch', it is unnessary and simply not proportionate to the problem. Which Jeff with a light touch and without upetting anyone, has largely now solved anyway. Joe's over-reaction seems to come from the idea that there are 'Mudcat people'like Joe, who are under constant 'attack' from people, presumably not 'Mudcat people' like Joe. Which appears to be just about anyone who does not totally agree with him or produce a post or thread that is not exactly to Joe's taste, or up to Joe's test of worthyness. Not agreeing with Joe or anyone else is not 'slamming' them. However, it surely is not necessary for Joe to provide propaganda (biased information), to demonstrate the wisdom and justice of his editing powers? Amos did I really make a demand? as Joe claims? The actual words are all here. I am not asking anyone to take sides, there is far too much of that already, but my concern was moderately expressed, but quite clearly not moderately dealt with. As demonstated, Joe sees everything as a challenge to his authority or an attempt and has a knee-jerk reaction to this. When you happily place yourself in this position, you must surely expect a few bullets to fired at you. If you insist on just firing them back, or verbal jousting', with the contributors, even the identified and more civil ones, I feel it risks making a bad situation into an impossible one. What is engendered by this paranoia, is a climate where folk feel they should be commenting on the suitablity, validity, category, length grammar, spelling etc, and bringing the abberant behaviour of others to the attention of 'Miss. Rather than just joining the discussion in the thread or just ignoring it. Our many-named shadows, whatever their motivations and short-commings, are clearly not stupid and have and will exploit this weakness to the full. You asked me to specify - I have asked more than once, if the originator of a thread, or poster concerned can be asked for their view before any major judgements are imposed and actioned on their posts. Not an unreasonable request, I would have thought to achieve the aims you refer to..... But where is the answer? Despite all the references to Joe, this is NOT a personal attack on him, as I recognise his sincerity and many qualities. However it is strong criticism of what he has done here, appears to be blind to and has every intention of continuing to do, despite the views expressed here of a number of people who do not support it. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 06 Mar 03 - 03:19 PM Roger, you've done a LOT of presuming about Joe, stating things that just are not true. Also, have you noticed you are the only one still going on and on about this? Everyone else is moving on with the wonderful elegant solution which Jeff implemented. It is also disingeuous for you to claim it is not a personal attack on Joe, when you use such declarative statements as you've done. Don't you remember the many, many times when Joe and I locked heads on some issue? Several others have done so, too. No one is walking in lockstep with him or anyone else on this website. Get a grip and let it go. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Ed. Date: 06 Mar 03 - 03:49 PM Well said, Kat This might be deleted as a 'personal attack' but I'll say it anyway: Shambles, you're acting like an idiot. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 06 Mar 03 - 03:50 PM I had a teacher in high school once, who, after a LONG discussion about how much freedom kids should have in class, walked in the next day and wrote on the blackboard: "This class is run democratically!!" ...........signed, King Harmon I we got the point, and he was a rather benevolent despot as it it turned out. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Mar 03 - 06:01 PM Shambles, I think I know how you feel. I certainly know your position, You've made it clear several times in this thread. You are entitled to feel this way, even somewhat justified. Joe is not entirely impartial, he does express his own opinions, and there were errors made in the handling of the PEL threads. Joe has obliquely said all of these things in his answers to you on this thread. The problem will be largely alleviated by the segregation of the "BS" threads and, since Joe has admitted that errors were made, it is less likely to happen again. If you are looking for a direct and formal apology, it is my guess that your frustration will continue. I believe that Joe feels he has been sufficiently contrite and wants to move to the next topic. Rick's point, "If not Joe, then Who?" is very salient. There are a lot of fora out there, very few have that combination of warmth and spirit that this one does. I am sure that the MudCat would not be what it is without Joe's hand. I have met Joe in person and will tell you that he is a very warm and likeable man. He is a man and sometimes men make mistakes. Why don't we forgive him and move on. |
| Share Thread: |