 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: harpgirl Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:09 PM Since we are on the subject, who are the cloneheads exactly at this moment in time? What have each of you deleted, changed, modified, or rewritten in the last week? Why? or why not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:54 PM Ed Skenieuwezscheivevitz, are you Polish? We had a great Polish Easter, Borscht with kielbasa, and slejie (picled herring) - Polish cheesecake for dessert, all made by my Polish wife and mother-in-law. Happy Easter! -Joe Offer- 450 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:09 PM Ed, you are the guy that needs his head examined. I'd get right on it. I should not have pulled the gun on you, but you should not have insulted chimps after givin' me a headache for a solid hour and a half with all your crazy paranoid political stuff. You are seriously out of touch, man. You need help. No, I am not Martin Gibson. I ain't had the pleasure to meet him, but I figure I will one of these days. I don't work for the friggin' New World Order and I doubt that Martin does either, but who can say? I think you oughta learn to control your mouth, mister. I listened to your "Day of the Dolphins" CD. Frankly, it's not good. Sorry to tell you that, but it's not. Not to me anyway. I figure it could be useful though, to break down hardened criminals and wring confessions out of them by repeated playings. It would be cruel and unusual punishment, but it wouldn't do permanent harm, so I'm for it. I got your hat here. The one that says "Folk You!". I will send it if you provide a mailing address. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:25 PM Harpy.......If I were a Clonehead, I would have to say that I haven't changed a thing in the past three weeks or more. However I would be thinking of adding "I just love Catspaw" to your above post. Whaddaya' think? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: harpgirl Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:35 PM Since we are on the subject, who are the cloneheads exactly at this moment in time? What have each of you deleted, changed, modified, or rewritten in the last week? Why? or why not? I just love catspaw.
[so do I ----skinny clone
[I don't know .... I guess he is all right, given the fact that he is a layabout. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:41 PM awwwwww........................geee whizz....................**blush**............ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Ebbie Date: 27 Mar 05 - 06:06 PM Yes, Joe Offer, he is. His friends call him 'Skinny'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Mar 05 - 10:22 PM Joe's friends used to call him "Skinny." I haven't been called skinny in ten years, since I gave up smoking and gained weight.... But thanks, anyhow, Ebbie. -Joe Offer, 190 pounds or so- (I was 145) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,jOhn from Hull Date: 28 Mar 05 - 05:16 PM Mr Shambles- Fuvkingf shut up, most pepople is fed up of seeiing you rubbish.john |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 28 Mar 05 - 05:17 PM ps= you are big moany person, and never make any good tghreads any more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Ebbie Date: 28 Mar 05 - 08:14 PM jOhnNy, don't be a one-noter, OK? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,bobad Date: 28 Mar 05 - 09:27 PM Joe It's that Polish food.It'll do it everytime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 29 Mar 05 - 07:23 AM None of this has anything to do with it. I am just trying to understand what the problem is with your failure to acknowledge what is being said. I think perhaps the answer is quite simple....You refuse to do so. I do repond to most posts made on the subject. I remain open to persuasion and demonstration that the facts are not as I state. I do refuse to respond in kind or at all to abusive personal attacks. And this thread (and others) will show that I have not chosen to respond in kind to your abusive personal attacks upon me. It will also demonstrate to you - (who unlike many others - seem to find this impossible) - how perfectly easy it is to ignore all obvious provocation. Others can judge - but what you have posted to me are abusive personal attacks and (mistaken) personal judgements. Although not I suspect posted really for MY attention but for the benefit of the rest of your posse members and the watching crowd. You should not be too surprised if I treat these abusive personal attacks (which you and some of your fellow posse members largely encourage by setting this example) in the same way as I treat the rest...... It has rather a lot to do with the fact that when you (and the other members of your posse) post only to make your uneeded and unrequested judgements on the worth of other posters - as in this case - you will usually be wrong. As all this judgement, division and personal abusive attacks from the favoured few - is NOT the object of our public discussion forum. You will also inhibit other posters and risk causing real pain - in an exercise that you seem to see as re-enforcing the bonds that hold your posse members together - i.e' the exclusion and riducule of those who do not think like 'we' do. The answer to this for you - is simple. If you do not like or accept the fact that the public are invited to have their say and agree or not - or that they may choose and are entitled not to agree with you - perhaps you and those that find this discussion and open debate a problem - can find somewhere else where you can sit and judge each other's worth and abusive each other - until your heart's content? Many post to say many different things - what I choose to respond to - and in what fashion remains a matter for me. As what you or any other poster may post to say is a matter for you. And that really is the answer to your problem. If don't like my view - fine. No one is forcing you to ever open this thread (or any thread) - or to discuss this subject ever again. My view is simple and is evidenced - that the 'spin' of what censorship here is being defended by - is not the reality of what is actually happening. Whether there is anything 'sinister' in this - is a matter for you to judge. But as this censorship it is not open, fair or have any clear objective - the motives of it will always be all open to question - until it is open, fair and has a clear objective. The one certainty is that - whatever other damage has been done and is being done to our forum - all this retrospective editing and imposed judgement has not prevented abusive personal attacks from being mounted. Especially when the example is set by our volunteers indulging themselves in mounting these, inciting others to do so and encouraging the idea that there is something amusing in this. And still attempting to maintain some moral high-ground. I have no real idea why this thread on this subject is thought by some to be any worse than one with 10,000 post saying nothing - or any on the many other strange subjects that threads are about - but if YOU don't POST to any thread - It will die (eventually). Any thread that YOU don't decide to open IS EFFECTIVLY ClOSED........... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 29 Mar 05 - 07:56 AM Glad you overcome the problems Shambles. And I am well aware of quite a few who have similar problems......and I make no fun of them....nor do I make fun of you. I'm well aware also that a number of us have some mental health problems actually diagnosed. You do not seem to be aware that you never 'overcome' these problems. Folk are constantly struggling with them and whatever progress they may make in tackling them and whatever confidence they may have slowly gained - can be destroyed by a single casual remark, action or needless personal judgement made of their abilities. Over a long period - Max's Mudcat Forum has been very helpful to me in building up the confidence to express myself in writing. I would like to see it remain a place where others would also feel safe and free to also be able to build-up their confidence and tackle what ever difficulties they may have. Without being judged. If sometimes appears that folk now are being encouraged to think that what our forum is now only about - is for posting personal judgements of the worth of other posters and their right to post. The idea that there are good posters and bad posters is not a judgement made publicly by Max - it is a matter only of personal taste. There are only good posts - (the ones that you find interesting to read and may respond to) and not so good posts (the ones that don't interest you and you will not respond to). As it is possible for posts from the same poster to fall into both catagories - the idea that you should be encouraged to judge any poster to be a good poster or a bad poster is clearly nonsense and counter-productive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Giok Date: 29 Mar 05 - 08:15 AM 'Judge not, lest that ye be judged' Cuts two ways Roger! then there's 'If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen' and of course the immortal 'When you are in a hole stop digging' You've had support and encouragement, more than I think you deserve, from several people on this thread. I think you should rest on your laurels, as in the same way as 'You can't fool all of the people all of the time', you also can't persuade everybody to agree with your point of view, all of the time. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 29 Mar 05 - 02:03 PM "It's that Polish food.It'll do it everytime." Why does Joe polish his food? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 29 Mar 05 - 03:56 PM Spaw's Spurious Spinnin' Volunteer Mudcat Posse...........Sounds like a song title. Anyway, while the posse is feedin' their horses and tossin' back a few smart-ass remarks, let me try again. Shambles says....."I do re(s)pond to most posts made on the subject." Okay then, let's keep this simple and straightforward. The subject here is censorship at "Max's Mudcat Forum." It's the thread title. I think it is fair to say that your very well established position is that there is too much to begin with and the system in place, along with those involved, is not to your liking and you believe it to be detrimental to the forum. I think we do agree that although it is often referred to by all of us to be "our" forum, the owner and final arbiter/decision maker here is Max. So now, two simple questions which are not rhetorical and are on the subject.....questions, in other words, of the type to which you say you respond. Have you written directly to Max via PM/e-mail within the past 2 weeks regarding your concerns or linked him to this thread? If so, what response have you received? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:13 PM I have this image of Max coming home from a long, hard day in the Real World, and opening any one of a number of BS threads, maybe even this one, and wondering, "Shit, did I shave my legs for THIS?" How many times can a man be motivated to re-tinker the old hardware, cut family time short, and rethink the design-- for the kind of crap that is now the daily fare at Mudcat? And people think censorship is the issue-- it ain't. Puerility, now there's a problem. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,MMario Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:36 PM sometimes appears that folk now are being encouraged to think that what our forum is now only about - is for posting personal judgements of the worth of other posters and their right to post. Huh? I must have missed That! Where is/are the post(s) that can be interpreted in that way? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:43 PM "I have this image of Max coming home from a long, hard day in the Real World" The implication of the above statement is that Mudcat is NOT part of the real world. That is a mistake in either perception or logic, IMO. We can argue that TV is not part of the real world, but we all know better. The internet is as real as are many other technologies that exist today. No more, no less. Calling a shhep a dog will not make it bark; but calling the internet interactions of real people 'not part of the real world' doesn't fly right with me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: katlaughing Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:11 PM That's a little facetious, brucie, imo. What I am sure Susan meant was from a long hard day at work in the 3D world. Also, remember that Max is the Primo Volunteer of us all, with Pene Azul right beside him. Besides that Susan is one of the first who has MADE Mudcat real in the 3D world, too, with guesting various 'catters, etc. Shambles, it would be a lot better if you'd quit making sweeping generalisations about some perceived kind of amorphous persecutive moderating which you claim is so rampant and the "norm" on Mudcat. Joeclones are NOT the great and powerful OZ you seem to think we are. Frankly, I am not sure why I am even try to reason with you; it's been proven so many times, over and over, that it does not good. Hope you had a happy birthday. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:14 PM "What I am sure Susan meant was from a long hard day at work in the 3D world." Well, as long as YOU are sure what she meant, then all is just fine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:54 PM Have you written directly to Max via PM/e-mail within the past 2 weeks regarding your concerns or linked him to this thread? If so, what response have you received? I doubt that you address and judge Max in the manner you do to me. Or discuss private exchanges publicly like you do with me. Call him names and question his sanity and invite others to follow your example - so if you make your demand to him - he may answer you. As you make no public apology for any of your insulting comments in posts here - I see no reason why I should answer any public demand coming from you. So I won't - as it is none of your business. Max is not the problem and does not need to be bothered for the solution - we all are the problem and we all have always had the solution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Mar 05 - 06:42 PM The solution is simple. Get a gun. A shotgun. Load it up good and proper. Aim it at the computer (from a safe distance) and let fly with both barrels. There will be a lot of mess to clean up afterward, but it will be worth it. The little electronic demon that, along with your TV, has deprived you of a normal human life for decades now will be GONE, GONE, GONE. You will find you now have oodles of time to do the normal and natural things you once did, long ago...the things that people in places like Cuba and Trinidad STILL do...like going outside, gardening, exercising, cooking, playing sports, reading books, enjoying the weather, riding a bike, cleaning, painting a picture, socializing, playing music... Paradise lost will have been found again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 29 Mar 05 - 08:27 PM Soon this thread will take lotsa time to load and that will be a good thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:09 AM If certain posters (i.e Brucie) had not posted to this thread (at least) 65 times - in order to say very little - this thread may have died a natural death some time ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavergis Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:12 AM As Brucie says, this thread is getting unwieldy. It also carries a lot of invective and unnecessary personal criticism. I am a member of several forums, and some of them publish their "constitution". I will try to distil from them a feew simple rules regarding cencorship, and put them up for discussion. We don't have to apply them, this is up to Max. But it will be good to see if we can find some common ground by keeping it simple. Perhaps Roger and I might find ourselves on the same side of the fence as Little Hawk and Brucie...Who knows? I will start a new thread for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:30 AM I see that some posts in this thread Dealing with flamers and trolls have just been deleted for - what the brown writing says is 'anti-social behaviour'. Do we then expect this thread and all others to be also purged of all posts containing this 'anti-social behaviour'? Can we perhaps be told how is this conduct defined and by whom? What posters it applies to and what posters it will never apply to - no matter how poor an example they set? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:06 AM Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,MMario - PM Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:36 PM sometimes appears that folk now are being encouraged to think that what our forum is now only about - is for posting personal judgements of the worth of other posters and their right to post. Huh? I must have missed That! Where is/are the post(s) that can be interpreted in that way? Mmario – There is no shortage of these posts. The following one is probably one of the best single examples currently being set. There are a number of rules to follow – which this one demonstrates well. All of them ignoring the fact that encouraging all this personal judgement to be posted - is pointless and counter-productive. 1. First you make sure that the poster you are judging negatively is an easy target and any groundless inference you may make about them will be just more 'mud' that might easily stick. 2. Secondly you always use the royal 'we' and refer to 'us' – to imply that this is the view of those posters who matter. 3. Thirdly you never miss the chance to include some other poster's names and if you can – and if you get the chance - to make some ingratiating remarks about how positive a poster they are and what a good example they are setting. 4. It is not always necessary to make a thinly veiled threat of some sort – this is optional. As is actually making any contribution to the subject of the thread. Subject: RE: BS: Can't Refresh A Closed Thread : RE jOhn From: Big Mick - PM Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:48 PM Quite frankly, Roger, it is fortunate for you that someone as level headed as Joe, Jeff, and Max are, is making the decisions. If it were my decision, I would block you. Here is why. First off, you have nothing constructive to say. The majority of your posts, by a large margin, are on a single subject. That subject is your dissatisfaction with this place. With very few exceptions (the Pianist thread) that is all you post about. Second, It is clear that you gain some kind of gratification from complaining, and the resultant nasty responses from folks. It is like a Quixote complex gone mad. It seems counter productive to keep feeding this. I know that M, J & J are correct in their response to you. But a number of us feel that the forum would be better served without you in it. I wish that were not so. In fact I remember a time when you contributed mightily to this place. I wish that were still the case. In short, you are the best case that can be made for a moderated forum. Fortunately there is only one of you. I am posting this because of your focus on Joe. Joe has actually been one of your saving graces. There are a number of us that are pretty much at the end of our rope. You don't recognize that we understand Max's desire to keep this place as it is, hence you are allowed to continue. Instead of complaining about them, you should be grateful. Mick the Mudelf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:21 AM Shambles, sincerely, -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:51 AM Was this the bit you meant from that thread, Joe? I think one of the problems is that if you (as session leader or organiser or whatever) are seen to be laying down rules in a pub - like no singing etc - some folk seem to see that as a red-rag to a bull and will then do their best to just to mess things-up for everyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:06 AM No, George - just the thread title... -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:17 AM I thought as much; but the statement I quoted seems an excellent summary of self. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavergis Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:32 AM OK, El Gringo, I suppose you feel smug because you are in cahoots with Joe Offer and the faceless ones. What is wrong with feeling strongly about cencorship with no accountability? And why don't you "f*** off politely" back to Spain or Mexico or wherever it is you come from? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:59 AM Thank you, Xander - I love you too. You got the country wrong by the way, it's England. And I'm already there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:30 PM I did also say the following in that same thread. I did say that it was sad but if folk don't follow the conventions - this does not give you the right to start flouting them too. There is no polite way of telling someone to **** ***. For if you have volunteered to prevent abusive personal attacks from being posted - should you really been seen to be setting such an example? Of saying anything like this - to another poster that Max has invited to contribute to the part of his site that he has set aside for contributions from the public? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:44 PM When I tell someone to fuck off, I mean it in the nicest way possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavergis Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:18 PM I'm sure you do, Brucie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: kendall Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:02 AM I wouldn't be paranoid if everyone were not out to get me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,MMario Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:39 AM Shambles - I honestly cannot see how you draw those inferences from the post you qouted - if anything the OPPISETE appears to be true to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:15 AM Alanis Oppisete? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:47 AM Shambles - I honestly cannot see how you draw those inferences from the post you qouted - if anything the OPPISETE appears to be true to me. OK MMario - how about this example then? 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. In this one - not only I am judged guilty (of quite what I am not too sure) but everyone else is judge to be guilty of something too. Quite how anyone is judged guilty by engaging in debate in a public discussion forum set up for that very thing - escapes me. Or are we judged guilty of being silly? It looks as if there is an example being set here of encouraging an awful lot of personal judgement of the worth of fellow posters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:03 AM Possibly because you, shambles, do not debate. You repeat the same (false) claims repeatedly and ignore anything posted which does not support your claims. You twist postings out of context to also support your claims. You ignore answers to your questions. You refuse to answer questions asked of you or answer a twisted and warped version of the question usually out of context. this is not debate. you are not being accused of debating. You are being accused of not debating. Your posted record supports this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:50 PM 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. So, Max appointed some of us to try to keep down the worst of the nastiness. We don't do enough to satisfy some people (Clinton Hammond, for example), and we do too much to satisfy Shambles. So, we continue to stumble along what we see as the middle path, knowing that we will never satisfy everybody. Such is life. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 31 Mar 05 - 01:27 PM Well Joe you could adopt my motto for life. You die if you worry; you die if you don't worry. So why worry? Giok ¦¬] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 31 Mar 05 - 01:41 PM That is an excellent philosophy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 31 Mar 05 - 01:50 PM "In this one - not only I am judged guilty (of quite what I am not too sure) but everyone else is judge to be guilty of something too." GUILT? I am guilty of lotsa stuff. Every now and then I'm a real asshole. I am not always polite. I sometimes take things the wrong way. However, this morning I noticed that the sun rose. And I was still alive to greet it. All in all, things could be lots worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:00 PM Not necessarily from the perspective of some 'catters, but from my perspective. This thread--unlike my sheep-shagging thread from days of yore--has wasted lots of my time. I am OUTTA HERE! Yours in censorship. Brucie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Georgiansilver Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:01 PM Number |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Georgiansilver Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:01 PM 500 El Ted |