 sj |
||
|
||
Objections to Joe Offer
|
|
|
Subject: Objection to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:19 AM Objections to John Mehlbeher See the following post from the above thread. Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger From: The Shambles - PM Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:37 AM On the subject of imposed censorship. I am not too sure why any threads on this matter needed to be closed. I am pretty amazed that as two were closed and given a choice of three thread tiles - this was the one that was chosen to remain. I have no objection to John Mehlberger nor any other poster. I probably do have an objection to threads being started that have a poster's name and invitations for fellow posters to pass their personal judgement. Perhaps a better example can be set? I have no objections to Joe Offer. This thread I hope will be deleted (or closed as so many are) as it is just a way of pointing out that I am very concerned that the choice by our volunteers - of 'Objection to John Mellberger' as a remaining thread title will encourage others to post thread titles - like I just did.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Clinton Hammond Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:20 AM Get a life Shambles |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 30 Apr 05 - 09:07 AM Censorship on Mudcat |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 30 Apr 05 - 09:08 AM Maybe you'd get more people to play with you if you started a lyrics thread with profanity in the song title. Surely we can all come up with some clever tittie ditties to entertain ourselves with next week, no? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Amos Date: 30 Apr 05 - 09:23 AM Man -- passive aggression sure is YEWGLY. I request this thread be deleted. A |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 30 Apr 05 - 09:26 AM Amos you just agreed with my suggestion............Must be a first? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:13 AM But what about the "Objection to John Mehlbeher" thread? Should that be deleted also? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:15 AM Stuff it Shambles |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:20 AM Well said. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Once Famous Date: 30 Apr 05 - 11:25 AM I request that this thread stay open. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 30 Apr 05 - 11:28 AM tire-ing.. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Once Famous Date: 30 Apr 05 - 11:34 AM If you are tired, go to bed. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 30 Apr 05 - 11:36 AM No thanks, Martin. Some discussions are never-ending... My cookie crumbled, and I didn't realize it until I posted the message. Otherwise refreshed, Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Charley Noble Date: 30 Apr 05 - 01:00 PM Reading what Shambles originally posted, I agree with him. Of course, I was also initially confused...and would also have posted "GET A LIFE!" Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Apr 05 - 04:42 PM I guess I'm getting used to all the "objections." I try to serve people, but I know I can't satisfy all of them. I got a good lesson on that last Sunday. We had a church full of people waiting for 10:30 Mass to begin - and the priest didn't show up. We went next door to the rectory to see if there was a priest there - nobody. So, we gave the congregation a choice: if they preferred, they could go five miles up the road and make it in time for 11 o'clock Mass at our other church, or they could stay and we lay ministers would do a communion service for them. The lectors did the first two readings and I read the Gospel and gave a homily/reflection, and then the eucharistic ministers distributed communion. When there were prayers to be led, I led them. I had eight years of seminary education and I've done church work all my life, so I know the ropes. After the service, an overwhelming number of people stopped to thank me, and to say they enjoyed my sermon. One lady I didn't recognize said something nice, and handed me a note and told me to read it later. So, here's her note:
I sent the note on to the pastor so he'd be forewarned that there might be complaints, but I told him I was quite sure I had done everything "by the book." The pastor replied that he had received six anonymous voice mail messages of complaint, and one anonymous note (the Catholic Church has anonymous trolls, too...) - and at the end of his message, he offered me a job. So, I guess the lesson is that if we dare to do anything in this life, somebody is bound to object. But if we put our hearts into what we do and try to respect the people we serve, that's all we can be expected to do. So, that's the story of the first time Fr. Joebro led Sunday worship. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: George Papavgeris Date: 30 Apr 05 - 04:50 PM Do you do confessions by PM, Joe? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 30 Apr 05 - 04:58 PM Hey, Joe, should I call you Father now? LOL. Can we negotiate allowance? OK. Enough of that. That was good of you to do. I admire you for that, and it's true that no matter what ya do most of the time, someone will complain. We fought a house fire a few years back. The house we got to was fully engulfed, and despite a quick search for people inside, one of our teams barely beat a flash over by about eight to ten seconds. My partner and I had a piece of roof fall on us, and it was a tough four hours for everyone. We could NOT save the structure, and we knew that when we arrived. We did however save the structures on either side of that house. Because the hydrant pressure is low in that section of the town, we ran a constant tanker relay to keep the pumpers supplied with water. Two days later one of the fellows heard from someone that 'if they'd been in charge things would have been different'. So, what are ya gonna do. Everyone's an expert. Ya done good Joe, and ya do good here, too. Thank you for that. Bruce Now, that Father Joe thing has a nice ring to it . . . . Father Joe, what it be bro; how do it go; what do you know? Yo, Joe. (OK. Rap's not my thing, but it has a nice ring, an' you make me sing, Father Joe. Yo, Joe.) LOL Have a good day, buddy. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Georgiansilver Date: 30 Apr 05 - 05:04 PM For pitys sake, leave the censors alone...let them be...who on earth are you to think you have the right to question their judgement? They do the job, just as the person who makes the decision for your country does.....Let them do their job...to the best of their ability...they may make mistakes occasionally but so do YOU!!!!! So button it and get on with living eh? Love and peace to all. Best wishes, Mike. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Apr 05 - 05:05 PM Confessions only in the open forum, El Greko. ..but please mail the bribe in a plain brown envelope. Fr. Joebro (thus named by His Excellency, Cat Cardinal Spaw) |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Janie Date: 30 Apr 05 - 05:17 PM I would object to Joe not making it to the Getaway, but other than that, count me as a BIG fan. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 05 - 05:29 PM simple math will tell you a lot about the state of the Mudcat today. When we were quite small, 8-9 years ago, and most everyone who came by was looking for songs and used their own name (some even used email addresses as 'names'!!!), it was quiet and we thought *gargoyle* was a big burden to bear when he started off at his tangents....but as anyone who has ever spent much time in a big city can tell you, a rise in population not only increases the possible number of weird folks shouting on street corners, it also increases the % of that type, just because of the stresses and total interactions and 'debates' between those whose anti-social behavior is borderline. The thing we forget is that a small number of nuisances can cause more than their share of problems in here. In real life, at a party, perhaps, we can either ignore a bore or contentious person by walking away, or even throw them OUT. In here, their comments stay right there in front of you unless edited, and it is hard to get someone actually banned. Plus, the very nature of the format allows people to operate under fictitious names and leads some to do stuff they'd never DARE say or do to someone's face! Although the total % of trouble makers is quite small, just a few remarks can reverberate through a lot of threads, and it takes not only special arrangements (filters, etc.) to ignore them, but a strong will to avoid responding when they hit one of your nerves. I have always wondered at Max's reasoning for allowing as much as he does, and especially at allowing the vitriol from anonymous 'guests', but *shrug*....the benefits outweigh the problems for ME...so far. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:12 PM Long Live the Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,Don Firth Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:20 PM I object to any objections to Joe Offer! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Deckman Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:27 PM Joe ... how does it feel to be treated as an OBJECT!! Bob |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:31 PM I rather suspected that if I stated that I hoped a thread will be deleted or closed - that it would remain open. *Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:34 PM No. I have no objection to Joe, or the job he is doing. 8-{E |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Ebbie Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:39 PM "who on earth are you to think you have the right to question their judgement? They do the job, just as the person who makes the decision for your country does.....Let them do their job...to the best of their ability..." Georgiansilver I was with you, Mike, until you got to this point. I not only do not object to Joe Offer but I feel gratitude and trust toward him. However, if you extend the subject to include those who "make the decisions for our country" - WRONG. It is our responsibility to question what they do in our name. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:50 PM Oh Ebbie...........I rather think your leg is being pulled. But there is nothing like the good old Mudcat double standard... |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Alba Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:56 PM I object to Joe Offer being to objected to.... The objection is to what exactly? Oh never mind. Joe....I reject the objection to you regardless of it's objectivity. Sometimes you can't do anything right when attempting to do the right thing as someone, somewhere will see it as the wrong thing in their book... As to the Confession Session in the Open Forum....hey if it works for someone...should make for an interesting thread...LOL Jude |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: DOpfer Date: 30 Apr 05 - 07:00 PM Off thread: I don't know about the main part of this thread, but about what brucie brought up, I believe that firefighters and police are probably two of the most second guessed professions where people's lives are at stake. Do people really think we WANT to let that building burn, or that the low water pressure is OUR fault? And exactly what would THEY do that would have a DIFFERENT outcome? (I've actually asked that when my chief scolded me for my attack tactics. And police? Couldn't pay me enough! Sorry for the off-thread ventin, but brucie's blurb struck a cord. (there cord, is that close enough of a music reference for the forum?) (;D> Thanks, DanO |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Peace Date: 30 Apr 05 - 07:12 PM Dan, we could kick that one around for hours, and I think we'd have a few tales to tell each other. Open Mike would have a few to add I'm sure. Keep safe. BM |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 30 Apr 05 - 07:53 PM As this thread looks as if it not going deleted or closed (as was the originator's request) and it looks to be the only thread that will be safe from imposed deletion or closure by our volunteers – perhaps a little more explanation is required. I have no objection to Joe Offer or any other poster. I have many objections to what Joe Offer does to our forum and to what he says on our forum and I tend to post and disagree with him strongly over these issues. However it may appear – I do try not make any public personal judgements and try very hard not to respond in kind to the many I do receive. The latter is not too difficult. So despite the impression that may be given - I do not see our forum as a place where judging the worth – or the right of fellow posters to post what they wish to - is to be encouraged - as all are welcome to post equally. Judging what a post says and deciding whether to respond or not – is enough judgement already. We all like to gossip about and judge others but very few of us like to be gossiped about and judged ourselves. If we indulge in these things in public (on our forum) – chances are we will find ourselves judged and gossiped about in return –sometimes not very politely. And we respond and so on………. Sometimes it appears that all this judgement is encouraged by the example currently being set. I fear that a thread title on our forum like 'Objection to …. ……' will only further encourage the idea that our forum is about posting personal judgements (good or bad) about fellow posters. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Jeri Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:00 PM Shambles, the thread HAD been closed. I don't know who did it, but I'm fairly sure Joe was the one who re-opened it so he could post his message at 4:42. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:14 PM Shambles- you should know by now that what the originator WANTS is seldom relevant to the life of a thread 'round these parts.... |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Jeri Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:24 PM Regarding Shambles request to have this thread deleted in his opening post, this<is like taking a shit in the middle of the floor expecting someone else<to clean it up for you,<possibly taking glee in watching the work you've made them do. When they decide to leave it lying around so everyone can see what sort of a person<you are, you can't blame them. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:51 PM Ah, Rottweiler Jeri surfaces to protect her Mudcat knights in shining armor... |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Bill D Date: 30 Apr 05 - 09:33 PM the trolls are getting desperate! |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:15 PM I dunno. Jeri's post works for me. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,observer Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:21 PM Well, let's see... Which would I prefer? a) a mudcat without The Shambles, or b) a mudcat without Joe Offer? Choice (a) would improve mudcat, and Choice (b) would be disastrous No contest is it??? |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Big Mick Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:58 PM No contest there. If it were my call, it would be thus. Jeri, got any toilet paper? We have an extra pile. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 30 Apr 05 - 11:30 PM If it were not for the interventions of Mr. Joe Offer and the kind benevolent prescence of Mr. Dick Greenhouse....
Mr. MAX would have flushed my prescence with the twist of wrist.
(Well Mr. Max tried a couple of times - but I stuck like a triple-flushing-turd to the toilet-bowl. Thank You ALL
While I miss some old friends I offended (Mr. Seed etc) - in the old-Darwinian-days - you fought hard for a piece of turf....and the board, with its laize-faire approach was leaning towards counter-religions.
Mr. Shambles - if you read this post....stop complaining and START researching - post positive song threads....make additions....record what you find in local yard-sales......DRIVE THE HEATHENS from these shores of folk/blues traditions.
Sincerely,
Inch by inch...over the past four years the umbelical-imbiciles have retreated into their ice-landic woes. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Joe Offer Date: 01 May 05 - 02:37 AM Hey, when El Greko confesses, we're going to sell tickets. Should be a great fundraiser for Mudcat... I suppose I ought to confess that I closed the thread this morning at Shambles request, just because he wanted it closed. But then I've been wanting to tell my Fr. Joebro story all week, and didn't want to start a thread about it, and this one seemed as good as any, so I reopened it and told my story. My reason for closing this thread in the first place was much weaker than the reasons for closing other threads. True, the thread shouldn't have been started in the first place. But since it was I figured it was a good enough place for my story, I reopened it. And it goes to prove the point of the story - ya can't please nobody none of the time, so you might as well do what you think is the right thing to do. -Joe Offer- As for Gargoyle accusing Dick Greenhaus and me of assisting his survival - well, I do like gargoyle, in a twisted sort of way.... I like Martin Gibson, too. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: Georgiansilver Date: 01 May 05 - 04:29 AM Sorry Ebbie...wasn't intending to get into deep political discussion...Best wishes, Mike. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: EagleWing Date: 01 May 05 - 06:21 AM But there is nothing like the good old Mudcat double standard... Talking of double standards - there is also the heads I win, tails you lose syndrome - as with your: I rather suspected that if I stated that I hoped a thread will be deleted or closed - that it would remain open. *Smiles* If it had been deleted you would have been proved right. Since it has not been deleted you can come up with smiles because your suspicions were right. Good one Shambles - and now for your next trick . . . Frank L. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: EagleWing Date: 01 May 05 - 06:32 AM I have many objections to what Joe Offer does to our forum and to what he says on our forum and I tend to post and disagree with him strongly over these issues. I'm learning new things each day! Frank L |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: EagleWing Date: 01 May 05 - 06:47 AM Joe's story about the time the priest didn't turn up struck a chord for me. (Off thread but why not?) I'm a Baptist but I was temporarily working in a Catholic Primary School (4+ to 11). It was my turn for a class mass. I had trained the kids to do the prayers and to sing the hymns to my guitar accompaniment. The parents had all arrived but no priest. The headteacher phoned around and none of the local priests or deacons seemed to be available. So I started the mass anyway. Obviously, as a "protestant" I could not celebrate the communion but I did do a short homily assuring the parents that, although we could not partake in the bread and wine, yet Jesus' real presence was still there as he had promised that where two or three gather in his name he is there in the midst. Despite the fact that some of those parents were died in the wool traditionalists, I received many words of thanks from parents and Headteacher. To the best of my knowledge there were no complaints - unless they went to the head and he did not pass them on. Just to let Joe know that some people get away with it and to say how much I appreciate his work. Frank L. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: catspaw49 Date: 01 May 05 - 07:23 AM Oh no......I was just waiting and watching to see how long it would take..........***sigh***...............Eagle Wing, you've gone and done it now. (:<)) Ever since this no-win thread was atarted, I ve been waitng for Roger to drag it over to his favorite topic without seeming to do so at all. I bear you no ill will my friend, it was inevitable and someone was bound to give him the opening he's been longing for. Don't worry about it!!! We luvya' anyway!!! Here is the particular line that opens the door: OUR forum Shambles? I hadn't realised it was ours. I thought it had an owner who kindly opened it to all and sundry. How many shares do you own in this public company? Or is it in the public domain? Sham, why not take a break? Give it a rest for awhile huh Roger? Go dig some termites or something........... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 01 May 05 - 07:33 AM If it had been deleted you would have been proved right. Since it has not been deleted you can come up with smiles because your suspicions were right. Good one Shambles - and now for your next trick . . . Frank L. Thank you Frank. But I am but learning from the masters of the double standard here - and I still have a lot to learn from them yet. *Smiles* OUR forum Shambles? I hadn't realised it was ours. I thought it had an owner who kindly opened it to all and sundry. How many shares do you own in this public company? Or is it in the public domain? I'm learning new things each day! So are all of - us on OUR forum............. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules From: Max - PM Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM 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. http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=14726&messages=56&page=1&desc=yes ------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles - PM Date: 26 Apr 05 - 06:25 AM I have to agree with Joe – when he agrees with me – in the following http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1448049 Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos. Sadly not all (of those who's views would appear to matter most) are in agreement with the idea that it is "our" forum… From: Big Mick - PM Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:02 AM Those of you who continue to debate are very silly. This person continues to try and set the predicate that this is "our" forum. It is not now, never has been and never will be. Max owns it, maintains it and decides what it will or will not be. This person continues to draw you into the discourse based on incorrect assertions, has made it clear that he will not accept any answer other than what he wants to hear. It seems to me that those that encourage him are no less guilty than he is Censorship on Mudcat Has all the details and evidence. – Fot it would now appear - from Joe Offer's OFFICIAL brown words in that thread – that OUR forum is NOW to be only - for the convenience of our volunteers. Some of this select band -who will able to remain anonymous, whilst imposing their personal judgement upon fellow posters. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: matai Date: 01 May 05 - 07:40 AM Who's (Fr?) Joe Offer? (-: They say whether negative or positive it's all publicity. So thanks I really enjoyed the priestly officiating story Joe. I've noticed whenever I open up these kinds of threads that something quite interesting often happens. Great that there are people here who know how to make silk purses. |
|
Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer From: The Shambles Date: 01 May 05 - 08:50 AM Jeri said Regarding Shambles request to have this thread deleted in his opening post, this is like taking a shit in the middle of the floor expecting someone else to clean it up for you,<possibly taking glee in watching the work you've made them do. When they decide to leave it lying around so everyone can see what sort of a person<you are, you can't blame them. Not a yet another double standard here Jeri - is it? You think it is wrong to shit on the floor and expect someone to clean it up - but OK when an anonymous volunteer does clean it up - but decides to shit on the floor again themselves? Shit is shit - no matter who shits it. I think we should be be clear that the most harmful thing here is to encourage the idea that thread tiles like this one - inviting personal judgements upon fellow posters are acceptable. This concern was something that I had seen Joe express recently - so expecting some consistancy - I was amazed that when Joe thought he had to rush to impose his personal judgement upon fellow poster's contributions - and given a choice of 3 thread titles - that Joe decided to leave the thread title that invited personal judgements to be made of a fellow poster's right to post. The ojections were NOT in fact TO the individual named - but what they posted and the potential offence and harm done by this content. This was the important issue. But our volunteers setting the example of actually choosing (out of a choice of 3) to leave that title in place and choosing (anonymously) to both delete and re-open this one - is I fear only going to encourage the idea that personal judgement of fellow posters is acceptable and starting threads - with titles to this end - is a good thing. Perhaps it can finally be accepted that imposed censorship is DIFFICULT and PROBLMATIC. A case of being damned if you do and damned if don't. That is why - UNLESS YOU REALLY ARE FORCED TO - imposing your personal tastes upon the freely given contributions of others - without their knowledge or permission should NOT EVER be undertaken as a matter of routine. Which is now sadly the case. What something appears to be the obvious solution - very often turns out in the long-run - not to be the easy option that it promised to be and sometimes becomes a far bigger problem that the one it was set-up to address. When the tail starts to wag the dog - it is often difficult to convince others that the dog is in fact as friendly as it is claimed to be. Without being accused of a double standard - how can our volunteers now pursuade a poster starting a thread with a title that invited personal judgements of a named fellow poster - that this was not a practice to be encouraged? |
| Share Thread: |