BS: Opening threads - a debate.

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: 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: 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: 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: Jeri
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:35 AM

WHIPLASH!!!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:32 AM

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

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:37 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 11:08 AM

Then what pray is preventing you?

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 - 11:17 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: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:32 AM

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

For there appears to boredom among some of those anonymous ones who perhaps could be better employed currently (or if I had my way - not employed at all). (Shambles)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:48 AM

What is preventing me? A debate has two sides, a debate has a topic. I asked you for a topic, you said it was up to me, I gave you a topic and you responded with many opinions but none that were specific to the topic I chose. I'm willing to debate, I'm waiting for one to start. How's this for a topic...let's debate whether or not it is possible to have a debate here on this Forum. I believe that we can. What do you think?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:26 PM

What is preventing me? A debate has two sides, a debate has a topic. I asked you for a topic, you said it was up to me, I gave you a topic and you responded with many opinions but none that were specific to the topic I chose. Frank

OK, you said that I could pick the topic. I picked the renaming of the PEL threads. Frank

I offered a debate. You said that I could pick the topic. I did. the topic was "The Closing of the PEL threads". Frank

As none of the PEL threads were either renamed or closed (when current anyway) - I have pointed out that there was really little mileage in debating any of those topics. And you had already made the judgement that 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.

Are you saying that you think it not only understandable but acceptable on our forum - for anonymous fellow posters to impose judgement and editing action - based not on what is being said but only on their many listed assumptions about what a fellow poster's possible motivation for their postings may be? When it has already been agreed that the PEL issue was a perfectly valid one for our forum.

Would you still consider it understandable and aceptable when these assumptions were wrong?

And would you consider that after four years these groundless assumptions should still be motivating the selective editing actions still being imposed upon this poster's contributions? Not to mention the continuing personal abuse and name-calling from our volunteer fellow posters - which I suspect you would also consider to be understandable? When Max has stated that he see his role only to facilitate?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:32 PM

I suspect there may be a pushing of the boundaries, in order to provoke editing, and thereby justify the original complaint. If the bait is not taken and no editing takes place then the objective of being able to post unedited is achieved, it's a sort of heads I win tails you lose situation.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:40 PM

We're caught in a trap
I can't walk out
Because I love you too much baby
Why can't you see
what your doing to me
When you don't believe a word I say
We can't go on together with
Suspicous minds
and we can't build our dreams
on suspicious minds

As there is no way of telling for sure what a fellow poster's motives may be - it is probably better to take what they post at face value.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:54 PM

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Think Again (Dick Gaughan)
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 05:13 AM

Susanne -

I am not so sure about urgency. For there appears to boredom among some of those anonymous ones who perhaps could be better employed currently (or if I had my way - not employed at all). And who - when they are not busy looking to impose their personal judgement upon the words of their fellow posters - would appear to be scatching around offering to undertake even less urgent tasks. In order to make them happy - like the following example.........


Subject: RE: BS: Cut-n-paster's creepin' back in...
From: GUEST,One of the JoeClones - PM
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 06:29 PM

I'd be happy to delete some of those lengthy articles and replace them with links. It's usually easy enough to find where they were copied from. Trouble is, I seldom read BS threads about controversial issues any more, so I don't see them.

Tell ya what: Post links here to threads that have long articles in them, and I'll see what I can do. The thread number would be sufficient. I don't guarantee that I won't get bored after a while, though.

Think again - indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Pseudolus
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 01:01 PM

See? Now we have something to debate! OK, Joe himself said that a "PEL tag" was added to the threads so that others would know what the thread contained. I for one appreciate that because as I said before, sometimes I don't have a lot of time and I like to know what I am getting into before I open teh thread. To me, that is a reasonable thing to do not to mention helpful. As far as the editing of the threads goes, it is my understanding that the clones took lengthy posts that were posted in several threads and consolidated them into one. This is also reasonable in my opinion because if someone was going to read all of the PEL threads why would they want to read the message over and over. what is the purpose behind putting it in so many threads? No post was deleted unless it was a duplicate of a post in another thread. He explained that it was due to the duplication and always left one post in there. If he was editing out your opinions, wouldn't he have deleted them all?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 02:52 PM

to be scatching around (Shambles)

What does that mean?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 06:47 PM

The following was posted on another forum I frequent just the other day. Just for reference sake it's good to remember just how free and easy Mudcat really is and that Joe and the Clones are so relaxed in their moderation. The fact they remain in the job is obvious proof that Max is satisfied with the work and decisions. The post below appeared AFTER 1bout a dozen threads on the subject in question had already been deleted along with probably well over a hundred postings. Needless to say that none of those involved as the posters and thread originators were notified. All other posts had been consolidated into one thread. Sham may have a heart attack about this type of thing but it is common as dirt on the net as anyone who is out there knows.

**********************************************************************

Civil opinions and posts are welcome here.

http://insider.speedtv.com/viewtopic.php?t=97713

New duplicate threads, and uncivil comments will be immediately moved and/or deleted.

The old threads have been shut down and will be deleted, as the changes are made, and you now have opportunity to post your comments on this new thread.

Please express your thoughts and emotions in a courteous or at least a civil manner. You post here as a privilege.

Thank you.
_________________
Speed Monitor

**********************************************************************

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,One of the JoeClones
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 07:50 PM

Since someone thought my offer (to delete copy-and-pasted articles and replace them with links) was important enough to copy and paste to two other threads, I figure you might be interested in knowing the outcome of that offer.

Fact is, no one took me up on it. No one ever named a thread they wanted an article deleted from. So I didn't delete anything. I concluded that the whole controversy is much ado about nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 02:30 AM

Fact is, no one took me up on it. No one ever named a thread they wanted an article deleted from. So I didn't delete anything. I concluded that the whole controversy is much ado about nothing.

I would suggest that all instances of posters complaining about the posts of their fellow posters should be thought to be much ado about nothing as they should be informed that the only postings that anyone has any control over - is their own. The idea that one poster may judge another's to be 'obnoxious' should be seen as a opinion - not as justification for imposed editing action.

Meanwhile as a result of recent crashes - many interesting older threads are still messed-up and the posts contained in them are still remain out of sequence.

Perhaps setting our unknown numbers of volunteer fellow posters to work on this task may be more useful to our forum than having them sitting around waiting to judge and impose their anonymous judgement upon their fellow posters for the slightest excuse?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 10:35 AM

350

See? Now we have something to debate! OK, Joe himself said that a "PEL tag" was added to the threads so that others would know what the thread contained. I for one appreciate that because as I said before, sometimes I don't have a lot of time and I like to know what I am getting into before I open teh thread.

Yes Frank - Joe Offer did say this. It is difficult debating the PEL threads when you have already posted to support everything in the justification given as being understandable even when the assumptions behind this attitude it may not be true. Do you accept that by doing this you are also accepting all of the assumptions made in this list of justifications that formed the basis for these actions and attitudes?

Should imposed editing action be based on one poster's assumptions about what a fellow poster's motivations may be? You may think it understandable – under the current circumstances – but is it really necessary or desirable? Would you think it so understandable if I was the one imposing judgement and editing upon your contributions based only on my assumptions of your possible motives?

Do you think that any of our anonymous volunteer posters would be happy if I were doing the imposing of my judgement upon their contributions on this basis (or any other basis) and attempting by this imposition – to shape our forum to my personal tastes? And posting abusive personal attacks calling them names for not being in agreement with me and encouraging others to do this?

For these justifications seem presume that posters have lost their traditional (and understandable) right on our forum - to have their words remain as posted? Or that the whole purpose of our forum is to enable certain posters to impose judgement, name-call and speculate on publicly on their fellow poster's possible motivations, spelling, grammar and mental health etc. Pedantry that was so refreshingly absent from our forum here and which made it the fine place that it now struggles to be.

For the reasons I gave – the PEL threads were clearly titled to enable our anonymous volunteer fellow posters to provide links in a list which appeared at the top of each thread. To my knowledge none have been the subject to imposed re-titling – despite the hysterical reaction to mere existence of these threads from some quarters.

No one is saying that it is not perfectly understandable to wish to know what a thread contains by its title. It is only how such understandable aim is achieved and at what cost. Would a PM from our volunteer fellow posters to the originator, proposing a change achieve the same end - at less risk of offence and with a style more in keeping with the site owner's wishes?

Why does a title change have to be imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission? Why does this imposition, at this stage of our forum's development now appear to so many posters be so understandable? Perhaps because it is not happening to them (yet)? Or that the expectations for our forum have been lowered by comparisons with plainly inferior sites? And by some strange wish from some - for our forum to be as poor as these others are and not to work together to try and ensure that our forum is the special place that Max's vision and hard work entitle it to be?

It would indeed be nice if everyone else conformed to our idea of order. No amount of imposed judgement upon our fellows is ever going to make this happen is it? Perhaps our forum should be encouraged to accept that in reality – this is never going to be the case – rather than encourage the idea that such order and control can be (selectively and increasingly) imposed?

Will you accept that I am trying to ensure that posters continue to have control over their own postings and not be subject to the control, judgement and imposed personal tastes of a few (anonymous) fellow posters? This right is now routinely taken away at the slightest excuse. How can it be understandable for you to expect to have the right to judge that another poster's chosen thread title should made be clear for you? Is this understandable wish for you or others to have or impose this judgement - greater than the original poster's right to be control over the words of their own posts?   

Are you saying that the end will always justify the means? Surely every thread is individual just as every poster is an individual and worthy of individual respect?