 sj |
||
|
||
Question for Joe Offer on Censorship
|
|
|
Subject: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: michaelr Date: 16 Oct 02 - 11:39 PM Hi Joe -- I've just read the "Who's 53" thread that you closed because you didn't like the premise, and the "How does this new Mudcat work" thread where Guest gargoyle complains about his postings being deleted by one of your clones. I'm wondering -- Max has always maintained that he is opposed to any sort of censorship on this, his forum, so why do you take it upon yourself to play Mudcat policeman, and delete things that displease you? Seems to me y'all can't have it both ways. Does freedom of speech apply to the internet? I'd really like to know. Michael |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: khandu Date: 16 Oct 02 - 11:48 PM Joe, Far be it for me to whine about how things are done at the Cafe. It has been a privelege for me to come here. I do not complain. However, I, too, do not understand. I see your premise that this is a personal attack. However, it is no more a personal attack that the opening post of "The D Chord". It does not appear to me to have been an equitable decision. I am a visiting member here. I have drawn much pleasure and valuable info fom my visits. What ever decisions the Powers That Be make are theirs to make. But, as I said, I do not understand the seeming inequity. khandu |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Bill D Date: 17 Oct 02 - 12:34 AM I have not 'always' agreed with everything management and Joe and the clones ever did, but I sure ain't gonna apply for the job! |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Pseudolus Date: 17 Oct 02 - 01:33 AM I agree, I too would not want the job and I appreciate the things that Joe does here for Mudcat. I would hope also that Joe does not take this as an attack but perhaps simply constructive criticism. In fact I would say that the opening post to the thread was not really a personal attack as much as it was an attack on threads of that type. Certainly "53" is not the only one who has started a thread like the ones mentioned. On the other hand I wouldn't have a problem with deleting all threads that simply complained about the existence of other threads, but consistency is important. If others are allowed to exist, this one should have also. Much nastier threads have been allowed to not only exist but have gone on for incredibly long periods of time. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Oct 02 - 02:09 AM Well, Michaelr, you ask why I take it upon myself. Actually, it's my job. Jeff (Pene Azul), Max, and I are the ones who have that sort of editing responsibility. I guess I'm the most visible one because I handle most of the public contact, and Jeff and Max do more technical things. The Clones delete objectionable messages only in certain circumstances, and Jeff and I and Max keep an eye on what they delete. So, if you have a complaint about deletions, the blame shouldn't be on the Clones. As I said in my explanation for closing the thread, it was a hard decision. I should have just followed the rule and deleted the damn thread the first time I saw it - it was a personal attack (and it clearly named the individual it was attacking), and personal attacks are against the rules. However, it wasn't that strong an attack, so I waited for a day and kept hoping the thread would die. Most people seemed to have lost interest in it, but there were a few who kept trying to keep it alive. No, it wasn't a horrible thing, but I didn't think it right to continue to condone an entire thread based on putting down an individual. Maybe I should have just deleted the thread and said nothing, but I chose to be open about what I did and my thinking behind it. As for Gargoyle's posts, there was no question. They were meant to hurt somebody. There are other reasons why we delete posts and threads, but the main reason is that it appears to us that the message or thread is meant to hurt somebody. We usually try to delete that sort of stuff without telling anybody about it - as shown in this situation, the telling often causes more of a mess than the original problem. Still, since this was a borderline case, I thought I ought to give an explanation, and that I should not delete the thread. Anyhow, that's what I decided to do, and why I decided to do it. Actually, though, if you have questions about why something was censored, I can be more frank if you ask me privately. It's pretty hard for me to explain myself in a public forum, because that defeats the purpose of what I'm supposed to be doing. Thanks. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Liz the Squeak Date: 17 Oct 02 - 03:08 AM As the subject of one of the attack threads that have been posted by Guest, I can wholeheartedly say that censorship is needed. I would also say that I find the stuff that Joe has deleted has only been that of a grossly offensive, intimate and personal nature. On the whole, he lets us police ourselves, but when things start getting nasty, like the United Nations he's there to cool things off. Thank you Joe, you do a shitty job and get no recognition for it, only complaints and bickering. Not from me you won't. I don't want to see guests barred, but neither do I want them to upset my friends and family by posting obscenities and personal remarks. There has to be a halfway acceptable solution and to my mind, Joe and his Clones are it. Thank you, all of you. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Catherine Jayne Date: 17 Oct 02 - 03:41 AM I agree with Liz on this one. They are needed and I think we all should thank them for the job they do. I sure wouldn't want to do it. Cheers Cat |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: mooman Date: 17 Oct 02 - 04:04 AM Keep up the good work Joe...no problems from my side about your judgement which always appears to me to be solidly based. It's only a pity that such actions are sometimes necessary in the more serious cases. If people always maintained a level of basic respect for others and their views, even if they don't necessarily agree with them, it wouldn't be. Best regards mooman |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Gurney Date: 17 Oct 02 - 04:23 AM Dear Joe, just to add my two-pennoth to the subject, I think you are doing very well. I came to Mudcat from a local site which has been virtually shut down from personal attacks. I had no trouble personally from any of the protagonists, had exchanged views with most of them. However, at least one character could not retreat, and as the problems escalated to savage personal abuse, no-one shut the posts down. It became embarrassing to be on the site. I prefer to be where the mickey is taken GENTLY. Wassail. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: gnu Date: 17 Oct 02 - 05:02 AM This thread may draw many posts so I'll get straight to it. Thanks Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Hrothgar Date: 17 Oct 02 - 05:41 AM If there was no censorship at all, think about how bad it might get. More power to your elbow, Joe! |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Oct 02 - 06:23 AM As personal attacks go, the 53 thread was a pretty mild one, and was directed at an activity rather than a person. It would have been no problem at all with a different title such as "Why these silly threads?" I've had a lot of significantly nastier posts directed at me and I wouldn't want to have seen a thread closed down because of them. But the principle of closing down personal attacks is a fair one, and I can think of a good few cases where it's really been called for. Pissing in the waterhole is not a fiendly thing to do, and it's a health hazard. Cleaning up is a difficult thing to do, and I appreciate Joe taking on the responsibility. If I might disagree with his decisions on rare occasions, big deal. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Gareth Date: 17 Oct 02 - 07:05 AM I've np problems with these occasional deletions - and frankley some of the personal attacks deserve deletion - Along with the authors. Gareth - Founder member of the Laventi Beiria fan club. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Wolfgang Date: 17 Oct 02 - 07:09 AM I join in with many others: You are doing well, Joe. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Bagpuss Date: 17 Oct 02 - 07:27 AM Pissing in a waterhole is a very fiendly thing to do. Not very *friendly* though... |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: KingBrilliant Date: 17 Oct 02 - 07:52 AM I agree with Hrothgar - if this site were seen to tolerate personal attacks then we could see some really creepy individuals come out to play. I'm not saying that any of the people who has had their thread deleted is particularly creepy or nasty - but they could be the thin end of a nasty wedge if we didn't have Mr Offer & his merry men to keep things in order. Kris |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 17 Oct 02 - 08:09 AM I don't have a problem with the deletion, Joe. I've seen worse threads, but I found the thread as uninteresting as the ones that were criticized. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Oct 02 - 09:59 AM Whoa up here........Joe, that thread was started in a reasonably innocuous manner (and as khandu points out, not as flaming as many others which we let go). It was also started by a newish member who had yet to partake of the "Bob Experience." There have been several times when this subject has come up and we have all come to a better understanding of Bob and he has improved many of his newer threads as well. The give and take has been balanced I think, many of us have had PM's with him also, and things are pretty smooth with his situation. Leadfingers and other "newbies" at the beginning of that thread were obviously put off a bit by Bob's threads. If you look back Joe, a lot of people at various times have been put off by Bob's threads so this is just one more set of folks on the "Bob Learning Curve." I frankly didn't see that they were any ruder than any previous group of "learners" and I submit that the reason YOU found it offensive is that WE HAVE gone through it over and and over and over with Bob. I'm willing to bet we will do it again! Bob is a good guy, but he is a bit different at first and like others it takes some getting used to.....So do a hundred others around here.......and if we are to be so thin skinned as to have to look at a thread as innocuous as that one as being "a personal attack" then we need to sit back and try to get a grip. I see worse everyday here directed at a lot of people and they have rolled with the punches and in the rare case that it really is an attack, fine...take action. But not on this one....You are wrong Joe. Additionally, you give no credit to Bob for maturing along his own curve as a 'Catter for he did indeed answer in good humor. Good for Bob!!! Are you saying because Bob does have some things he copes with that he isn't capable somehow? I believe he is and has proven it over the past year or so that he can and does handle himself well. He didn't need you to do it for him. This was a damn innocuous (by all comparisons) thread and I worry that if we are to censor it, then what's next? How about Punch the Horse? Gimmee a break on this one.......Closure of the thread was not needed and I believe in this case Joe, you were wrong. Then again, that's just my opinion......I could be wrong. Pat |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: 53 Date: 17 Oct 02 - 11:34 AM Joe I didn't mind the thread. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: wilco Date: 17 Oct 02 - 11:45 AM Joe and Max and the others are doing a good job. My opinion of some of the offensive stuff is as follows: The ********** are ******** and ************, therefore ***************, *************., to put it mildly. Thank you for allowing me to say that. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Amos Date: 17 Oct 02 - 12:00 PM Pat: Joe made a judgement call, and I sympathize with your reasons for disagreeing with how he made it. It was a borderline case, and even Bob says he didn't mind it. But as long as we can haul Joe over the coals every now and then, I'm in favor of letting him do his job!! A Gee, thanks, Amos! The weather has been chilly up here in the mountains, and I love being raked over those nice, warm coals.... |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: harpgirl Date: 17 Oct 02 - 12:10 PM ...hey, if everyone with the ability to delete stuff is going to be doing so based on what they decide or what someone else tells them is offensive personal attacks, please delete all those threads started by the person that so and so used to think was me!... both before and after s/he realized it wasn't me...thank you oh, and please give us a complete description of what is an offensive personal attack. I can live with the rules, if I know exactly what "offensive personal attack" means....cheers...Abby |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Oct 02 - 12:23 PM Well Harpy, I dunno'.....Maybe it goes like this: Kiss my Ass Harpy! might be a personal attack whereas Please Kiss my Ass Harpy might be simply a personal request. I figure it must be something like that............ And AMOS--I'm not trying to prevent Joe from doing his job, just trying to define it a bit. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Amos Date: 17 Oct 02 - 12:26 PM I think you have a very keen sense of the finer points, SPaw!! LOL!! A |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: EBarnacle1 Date: 17 Oct 02 - 12:37 PM The other day, on another forum, I got flamed. My response was simply "Thank you for your lovely flame," which I sent. On second thought, as I know the flamer reasonably well, I will probably phone him and ask him what is really upsetting him and whether he wishes to talk about it. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: harpgirl Date: 17 Oct 02 - 01:23 PM I want that offensive personal attack deleted immediately! Who does that obnoxious possum-butt-blowing..so and so think he is? Love, harpy |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Kim C Date: 17 Oct 02 - 01:34 PM Most forums have rules of propriety, and will tell you up front, if you get nasty here, your post goes bye-bye. Get nasty here too many times, and You go bye-bye. I didn't even read the threads in question so I can't comment on those in particular. Unfortunately it's true that not everyone knows how to play nice, and sometimes they have to get their knuckles rapped. |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Oct 02 - 01:47 PM This is how I see it. I butt heads with Joe on a regular basis. (We just have trouble working well together.) But I always, always trust Joe to keep thinking abou things, and I would far rather have that quality in the role he plays, than that he decide things the way I would. My personal opinion in this instance, after a long period of advocating for Bob and trying to help him learn what actually works here, is that we need to trust Bob to keep thinking too, and to figure out from the feedback he gets here, what works and what doesn't. But when Joe decides things around here, I support that. Because the only way Joe can do his job is to DO it, on any given day, the best way he knows how. How can he learn and get even better at it if he doesn't do things in his own way so he can learn for himself what's workable and what's not? He can define his role for himself (with Max of course). I imagine it's one that evolves over time, just as we human beings generally do. So, go Joe! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Rick Fielding Date: 17 Oct 02 - 01:56 PM Jeesus, I thought the way to get a lot of people to notice and post to your thread was to put any of the following words into it: Ireland Northern Ireland Sex Max Israel Shatner Or phrases: "Is there sex in Northern Ireland"? "Why doesn't Max answer my e-mails"? "Israel Shatner, William's smarter brother". But I was wrong. The words "Joe Offer" and "censorship" (in all possible combinations) work fine. I'll remember that. Cheers Joe, see ya in Warshington. Rick P.S. I'll defend until death (anyone's but mine) your right to do whatever the hell you want.....it ain't like this stuff is IMPORTANT! |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Micca Date: 17 Oct 02 - 01:56 PM Good on you Joe, I wouldnt have your job for all the scotch in Isla!!! Having been on the receiving end, too, of deleted posts by a "Guest" I am grateful for the deletion and fully support joe and the others in their Judgements on this. I can understand coming here as a guest to get a subject discussed that one may not want clouded by "personalities" or that may be very personal and painful, but personal attacks, gimme a break!! It was the strong suspicion that it was made by someone I know, and know well!! and that the same person may well post here supporting this debate, all pious and innocent, and maybe even meet me face to face and just be Brass necked enough to do so that makes me irritable. If anyone wants to have a go, Come on, I am ready, but at least be up front and honest!! and not a phony pseudo-friend!! |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Oct 02 - 02:05 PM You missed out Guns, Bush and "What is folk?", Rick. (And "why are Americans so fat?", of course.) |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Oct 02 - 02:06 PM Okay Susan.....to respond....... This is how I see it. I butt heads with Joe on a regular basis. (We just have trouble working well together.) But I always, always trust Joe to keep thinking abou things, and I would far rather have that quality in the role he plays, than that he decide things the way I would. Couldn't agree more....I'm not asking him to decide my way and I do believe in Joe's sincerity in doing a hard job. My personal opinion in this instance, after a long period of advocating for Bob and trying to help him learn what actually works here, is that we need to trust Bob to keep thinking too, and to figure out from the feedback he gets here, what works and what doesn't. Exactly my point and I don't think Joe falis to give Bob credit in this case and is still in a protection mode....Bob doesn't need that in this case. Perhaps Joe isn't as familiar with Bob as you or I....in which case, he makes a decision without all of the relevant information. bob states himself that he wasn't bothered by the thread and I believe him. But when Joe decides things around here, I support that. Because the only way Joe can do his job is to DO it, on any given day, the best way he knows how. How can he learn and get even better at it if he doesn't do things in his own way so he can learn for himself what's workable and what's not? He can define his role for himself (with Max of course). I imagine it's one that evolves over time, just as we human beings generally do.I too support Joe, but if I don't voice an opinion when I think him wrong, then I do Joe a disservice. The role does evolve and that requires feedback...which is why I believe this thread was started. So, go Joe! Yeah.....Just not too far..... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: The Shambles Date: 17 Oct 02 - 02:58 PM Let he who without sin cast the first stone. Having read this I still do not understand why anyone would willingly undertake such a powerful, unpaid and impossible position as official Forum censor and be also be prepared to contribute (on equal terms) with all the other contributors? Does the post holder deserve our praise or our suspicion? I hope they expect to receive little of the former and much of the latter. Has it ever been established that the Forum needs to place anyone in such a such a position? If Max decides the Forum does need censorship, Max should be the only one to do it. I would vote for Max to do it, as no one can argue with the view of our creator and he does need or try to contribute on equal terms with all of the other contributors .... If I had a such a vote, which I don't. Silly me, for a dictatorship does not give one a vote, even a benevolent dictatorship (if such a thing could exist). Max's fine Mudcat is probably as close to this as it gets. If there was a point when this (fantasy) benevolent dictatorship possibly changes in to a malelevolent dictatorship, it is probably when censorship is introduced and meekly accepted or even welcomed with open arms. Especially when this grave responsibilty is delegated to one of us. I shall have to be careful as this may be perceived as a personal attack (and censored). It is not that....It is however, questioning the wisdom of anyone who would willingly accept this unrewarded and unrewarding poison chalice, anyone who would wish to pass on this responsibilty and anyone who perceives anything other than self censorship to be a good or necessary thing. Its a dirty job and if no one is prepared to do it, it does not get done. Does somebody really need to do it? Can we really not do it ourselves? |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 17 Oct 02 - 03:22 PM If I were in Joe's shoes, I would have sent a brief PM to each of the folks who had posted to the thread explaining why I had decided to kill the thread, and quietly deleted it. (Surely, Joe, you had to realize that this thread would be the inevitable consequence of the way you did handle it.) For that matter, I don't really see why some of the other members who are acquainted with Bob's situation didn't take it upon themselves to PM a few folks (like relative newcomer yours truly) and tell them what's going on. When you meet someone in person, you learn a lot about them in a hurry. Out here in cyberspace, it doesn't happen quite so quickly. To put it rather bluntly, it's sometimes hard to tell from a person's post whether they're drunk, just kidding around, being a smart-ass, or have a legitimate problem. If I were to make the mistake of assuming someone was being a smart-ass when, in fact, it was a problem with the person's communication skills, I would certainly not mind if someone sent me a PM to set the matter straight. Bruce |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: harpgirl Date: 17 Oct 02 - 04:17 PM Actually I don't believe that anyone should have deletion powers but Max, but he has given them to several people and so be it. In my own mind, these individuals have no more ability to determine what is proper than anyone else here does. I am just willing to go along with the majority since one voice won't usually change those minds who have deletion power. But frankly, I think they all have decided they know better and I don't agree with that! (What I really think) harpy |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: DougR Date: 17 Oct 02 - 06:57 PM I didn't read the thread, Joe, so I cannot comment on that. I can on policy, and I like Max's policy of censorship when someone posts a personal attack. I suppose what is and what isn't a personal attack is in the eyes of the beholder because you, Joe, thought it was, while others posting here did not believe it was. All that says to me is anyone who has your job is going to be subject to "second guessing" and criticizm. Good cases have been presented for both POVS, but I'll go along with you, because it is your job, and I think you try to be fair. I don't think such decisions should be decided by committee. I don't think it is realistic at all to expect Max to take on that responsibility, and I'm glad someone is willing to do it. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: katlaughing Date: 17 Oct 02 - 08:02 PM Joe's is a volunteer position and not one person has said a thing about the time involved. Sending a PM to each and every poster of an individual thread would be very time-consuming. Max doesn't have the time and I don't think it should be expected of Joe. I didn't read the thread involved, so I cannot comment on that. I don't see eye-to-eye with Joe a lot of the time, but I do know he is conscientious almost to a fault and puts a great deal of thought into what he does here, before he does it, which is more than can be said for a lot of us. Joe clones do not delete, unless it is a duplicate posting. If we come across something questionable, I don't know about the others, but I always PM Joe or Jeff (Pene) to alert them to it. The only times I have done that is when I see what have been quite obviously extreme personal attacks, such as one in which a suicidal peson was told by a well-known guest poster, to go get a gun and shoot themselves, or obvious spam from a commercial site which has nothing to do with music or any Mudcatter. As far as gargoyle goes or any postings which might attack me personally, I don't touch those with a ten-foot pole. Usually I laugh it off and ignore it, BUT I never delete it. Also, joe clones do not have access to any personal information, "secret" codes or anything else of that nature which a paranoid or two persons have speculated about. With the new Mudcat, there's not even that much for a joe clone to do! Heck, it's been ages since I've had to go put in line breaks for anyone!:-) kat |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Oct 02 - 09:20 PM Well, Kat you could do one for me here if you like. *G* ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Big Mick Date: 17 Oct 02 - 09:56 PM Folks, someone has to do it, and they won't always be right in someone's opinion. I am one of those that feels strongly that censorship is not a wise thing and that it is better for us to practice self censorship by not responding. Joe and I have disagreed, and some times in a very strong way, but I must tell you that when I look to judge whether I can live with something like this, I do so on the basis of intent. Joe's intent is crystal clear. He seeks to keep this place civil, and he only deletes on the rare occasion, and with a set of guidelines. The one thing I know about him is that he is one of the most honorable, hardworking, and decent people that I have had the pleasure to meet. Therefore when we disagree, and that is not uncommon, I still wash my feelings in the knowledge of the type of person he is. No place is perfect, but this place is making an attempt to walk the line between open communication and limited censorship. And Abby (Harpgirl), I appreciate that you didn't say me when you indicated the problem of false accusation, but let me state publicy that I was the one you referenced. In my duties as a Mudelf/Joeclone, I have come to see that I was in error. I attacked and insinuated publicy that you were the one. I feel bound to apologize to you publicly as well. I hope that you forgive those implied accusations. I was wrong to do that. Joe, it was a judgement call. Whether I agree with it or not, is another matter, but I respect that you made it in the spirit of keeping this place in good shape. Thanks for all you do. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Bobert Date: 17 Oct 02 - 10:08 PM Hey, the job could be rotated and then every Catter would get his or her turn, but, as fir my own Wes Ginny butt, I'd take a pass. I realize it may be hard at times to look into a cybermates heart and act on what you think the intent is, but I think we all recognize the line that need no be crossed. Yeah, I do get on my high horse as DougR will attest to but there is a manner in which folks can mix it up without namecallin' or threatenin'. The litmus test, I would think, is the person talking ideas or personalities and if a little of both, which one dominates the post. I for one, would like a certain member to be censored from referring to a former President as a "bag of puss' buit since there are some ideas that go along with the namecalling, I reluctantly accept it under the guise of "heat of the battle". Keep up the good work, Joe. You are my hero... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: harpgirl Date: 17 Oct 02 - 10:25 PM ...geez Mick, I already told you I didn't need a public apology. I was tongue in cheek about that because someone is always saying something about someone and no one can possibly please everyone and what about all the flame wars with GUESTs that weren't deleted....and on and on... I think we should police ourselves. If we don't then Mudcat will become McMudcat again. It was going that way until the new structure took care of many of the complaints. I've always thought that Max really wants us to police ourselves but he is not quite tough enough to stand up for that so he passed off the problem by giving delete powers to the closest person we have to a priest. But I have never seen Joe as all that perfect. I'm often afraid that he thinks he is close though, which is dangerous. And his martyish whining usually irritates me. I'm most trusting of him only when he admits he gets pissed, is petty, is often wrong, and admits he doesn't have to do all those wonderful things that he does for us so why are we so ungrateful?????? But I'll bow to the majority. Although I have an aversion to making nice to win a popularity contest.....I think people should be allowed to say what they think....we already have enough laws to corral and punish free speech and it's getting worse every minute harpy |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: GUEST,Richie Date: 17 Oct 02 - 10:28 PM As a guest at Mudcat the last several months, I only have the highest regard for Joe Offer and the excellent work he has done organizing, cleaning up and contributing to threads. Joe is simply a valuable asset to Mudcat. I also want to thank the many members here for their contributions, I've learned a lot. Conflicts and disagreements are part of the learning process and being able to disagree is what makes Mudcat great. Keep up the good work, Richie |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 18 Oct 02 - 12:16 AM Actually Joe...I'm kinda glad you have cleaned up my image around here over the past year....its a kinder gentler personae that's presented....and I'm learning to play nice
|
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Oct 02 - 02:29 AM Well, gee, Garg, I've seen you do some great work on a couple of music threads. Can't understand why you have to be nasty to people, though. You should leave that to Harpy. She's got a PhD in it. Ooops! Did I say that??? Fr. Joebro's reputation, ruined forever.. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: reggie miles Date: 18 Oct 02 - 03:41 AM Note to self: Rick says threads with the word censorship in title get most attention. ;~) |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 18 Oct 02 - 08:11 AM In retrospect -
|
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: harpgirl Date: 18 Oct 02 - 12:24 PM I'm leaving and never coming back!!!!! YOu won't have harpy to kick around any more! (clap, clap, clap, clap, cheer, cheer, cheer)!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 18 Oct 02 - 01:19 PM Joe, ya done good. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Amos Date: 18 Oct 02 - 02:06 PM Ya know, Garg, when you're speaking from the right side of your face, you're really smart and interesting and pleasant!! Reminds me of an old fairy tale about a little angel who gets trapped in one of those stone Gargoyle heads at Notre Dame. She gets stuck in there and half of the things that come out of the stone mouth in discussing Parisian affairs with pigeons and such are her own, and half are the bitter stone-head stuff. At some point, the bad half gets to unload his stress or his confusion or whatever, and becomes a renewed, soft-spoken soul, at which point the little angel is suddenly freed and rejoins her band. I forget who wrote it...actually maybe it hasn't been written yet, come to think of it. But anyway, I enjoy your posts Hope to hear more from ye. A |
|
Subject: RE: Question for Joe Offer on Censorship From: Leadfingers Date: 18 Oct 02 - 03:01 PM As the poster of the original bit on this,can I say that it was a genuine question,with no intention to upset any body.I have had my wrist slapped in PMs from other catters,and will try not to be so thoughtless in the future.OK? |
| Share Thread: |