 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Paco Rabanne Date: 22 Apr 05 - 11:12 AM 700 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 05 - 11:47 AM Sorry, Ted. I think you miscounted... Looks like Giok slipped in ahead of you. Sneaky son-of-a-gun, isn't he? I feel your pain, Ted, but it appears you lost this one. 750 is a really significant number, though.... -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 05 - 12:06 PM Is anonymous posting to be encouraged? [Closed] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 05 - 02:36 AM Why the 'tinkering' with these? Were any of the originators of these two threads consulted before all these change was imposed? Is a fine folk artist and writer not allowed by our volunteers to have their own separate thread for folk to comment on their passsing? Or as many threads as individual posters may wish to start? Is it really showing posters (and the subject) respect? And is it so important to interfere with threads in this manner and for volunteers to impose their personal prefences upon fellow posters? http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=80498&messages=104>Cyril Tawney Obit [21 April 2004] Messages from multiple threads combined. Most of the messages below are from a new thread. -Joe Offer- At least there was a editing comment to say this change had been imposed - but this fact would have been rather obvious anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 05 - 02:38 AM Cyril Tawney Obit [21 April 2004] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 05 - 02:54 AM RE: Lyr Req: 'A Thousand Years Today' (Paul Metser) Changes on the title of this one were imposed twice! The helpful first reply from open mike (below) was surely enough to ensure that the poster be encouraged, would not be inhibited from posting again and next time they would have posted a more informative title? Without any need for any volunteers to impose any changes? Subject: RE: Lyr Req: Lyrics Request From: open mike - PM Date: 21 Apr 05 - 08:55 PM you will be more likely to get a reply if you specify the title of the song in the title of the thread. (Lyric Request is already labelled as such if you specify that) Welcome to Mud cat and i hope you find the song. there may be a helper/editor who can fix this for you.. this is an amazing place--glad to have you here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 05 - 03:02 AM This thread title was thought to be perfectly sufficient for 4 years! Lyr Req: Oh, I was born... [Lunatic's Lullaby]
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 24 Apr 05 - 03:34 AM Is a fine folk artist and writer not allowed by our volunteers to have their own separate thread for folk to comment on their passsing? Isn't that exactly what he has in "Cyril Tawney Obit"? Each to their own of course but it makes more sense to me to have all the obit messages in one thread rather than having them scattered between 2 threads. The closed (illness) thread contains a link to the thread so it is easy enough follow from one thread to another. I don't suppose I'd agree with every thread title change, movement of message, etc. (any more than I would agree with every single other editing action) but I neither expect to or need to nor would bother kicking up a fuss it a post of mine was moved or a thread was retitled. One of the criticisms I had about Mudcat was the difficulties in going back to find information because posts were spread out into multiple threads, some threads contained more than one topic, meaningless thread titles, etc. As such, I think efforts towards making "research" easier are to be applauded. I suppose it does depend on how you view Mudcat - as a place just for conversation or as a place that allows conversation but also an archive of knowledge. I know Joe is of the same school of thought as me but I would also assume the actions are approved of from above - I can't think why the ability to cross reference threads and the ability to move threads were added by Jeff (under the authority of Max) otherwise - I know of no-one who would program in new facilites that they don't want to be used. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 05 - 04:40 AM Music threads are routinely retitled and consolidated and cross-indexed as part of our indexing process, to help make it easier for people to find songs by song title or songwriter name. If space permits, the original thread title is retained, with clarifying words added. Non-music threads are occasionally retitled for clarity, but the need to retitle non-music threads does not arise as frequently because non-music threads are not used for reference. -Joe Offer- Yes it is mostly well-intention but perhaps it is as well to forget the fancy words and the 'spin'? Routine censorship imposed by anonymous volunteer posters - upon the invited contributions of fellow posters - without their prior knowledge or permission is what we are talking about here. My main point is that "our" indexing process does not seem to involve obtaining the agreement of the contributors. When the issues here - like whether a thread is combined into one - left as the poster made it - or have a link to others - are largely a question of personal taste - as Jon's post indicates. The question is - whose personal taste? Why not mine, Jon's or your's? As you can't please all of the people all of the time - perhaps it is better that the personal tastes of each contributor are respected and any changes to their contribution are only made with their agreement? We could all argue forever about the merits of each imposed change - (that is why it is better not to impose one's personal taste and judgement upon others). But Jon mentioned the Cyril Tawney thread so I will express my personal view on that imposed change. A link to the two threads would have been better as one was started when he was alive (if very ill) and the others was started after his death. The originator of the later thread - did have the option of refreshing an existing one - but chose to start a new one. Perhaps poster's freely made choices like this - can be respected by all our volunteers (especially the anonymous ones) - from now on? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 24 Apr 05 - 04:59 AM Roger, you said "My main point is that "our" indexing process does not seem to involve obtaining the agreement of the contributors. When the issues here - like whether a thread is combined into one - left as the poster made it - or have a link to others - are largely a question of personal taste - as Jon's post indicates.. It is a logical point, but not a practical one, for the same reason that libraries do not obtain the authors' or publishers' permission when they index their material, but they do the indexing according to their own, often arbitrary rules. But we live with that, even if sometimes you find Terry Pratchett variously under "Comedy", or "Science Fiction", or whatever. If the author or publisher feels strongly about the indexing of their work, they can complain and in some cases (not always) effect a change. Most importantly, nobody accuses the libraries of high-handedness for this practice. If we can live with this practice in the more important world of books and libraries, I contend that we can certainly do so in a web forum. Your point would be good for a perfect world, where there is ample time to take care of details. In the imperfect world we are landed with, we compromise, because life is too short for the alternative. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 05 - 06:12 AM The indexing of a library's contents - do not involve re-naming the author's titles to the personal tastes of those employed by the library. I suspect these individuals would not be employed for very long - if they attempted such an impractical thing which showed so little respect for their authors. If it were a matter of accepting an imperfect world - would any attempt to improve it be equally futile? I think that I am asking for acceptance of this imperfect world - where contributors say and do what they wish and not what someone would prefer they said or did. I am not asking that these changes do not take place - simply that they are not imposed without the poster's knowledge or agreement. That is not expecting any sort of world perfection. It is simply asking that all contributions be equally respected - as generally they have been. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 24 Apr 05 - 06:20 AM It is simply asking that all contributions be equally respected - as generally they have been. They are in the sense that all contributions may be subject to editorial action performed by the people entrusted by Max to perform such tasks, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 05 - 06:46 AM What is so wrong with the advanced search? It would seem that - without any imposition by any anonymous volunteers upon fellow posters (without their knowledge or agreement) - it is now perfectly possible (using this facility) to find anything that any poster could possibly wish to find on our forum......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 05 - 07:01 AM Such as..... 0.7967 - Thread - Message - RE: Cyril Tawney - Dec 1 2002 9:56PM - Joe Offer Summary: Somebody mentioned Stanley the Rat in a thread, and that motivated me to cross-index all our Cyril Tawney threads and songs. For me, Cyril Tawney was one of the high points of Whitby Folk Week this year, and I made a point to see him several times during the week. He's like an overgrown elf, with a perpetual twinkle in his eye. Were this an artist that was not to Joe Offer's personal taste - perhaps they would not have been subject to the special treatment that Joe Offer decided to give to Cyril? In that case - they or their supported may think The Mudcat Forum is subject to the personal tastes of one contributor...........? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 24 Apr 05 - 07:39 AM What is so wrong with the advanced search? There is not a lot wrong with the search facilities here, Only problem is if you have 20 threads on a subject they might find 20 threads for a user to wade through whereas if threads are combined a user has fewer and it's much easier reading through one consolidated thread that skipping through several. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bill D Date: 24 Apr 05 - 12:14 PM "We could all argue forever about the merits of each imposed change..."...yup...seems like forever already. - "(that is why it is better not to impose one's personal taste and judgement upon others)"...nope...contrawise. That is why it is better to have a limited number of 'editors' acting on one one basic set of guidelines. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 05 - 12:43 PM You only require one 'editor' imposing arbitary judgements based on their persoanl taste - for us to argue forever about the merits of each imposed change. That is what it appears that we have been doing ever since this routine imposition was introduced and what we will continue to do - if there is not a review and a change. If these changes to thread titles and general tinkering are thought to be needed - why was the imposed change to the 'Romans' thread thought by Joe Offer to be going too far - and changed back by him? This as a result of his personal opinion and taste - when in the personal opinion and taste of the still and equally trusted volunteer - it was a change that required to be imposed. To avoid all of this - perhaps it will be better from now on for us to have no 'editor' and to leave what a poster chooses to say - as a mattter for them only? And for our volunteers to concentrate on enabling this by only responding to requests from posters for changes to their own contributions? Max himself can judge if he wishes the few extreme contributions to remain on his website |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bill D Date: 24 Apr 05 - 12:56 PM Max, himself, already judged that he wanted a few editors, with one chief editor. Most everyone seems to be happy with that arrangement...only one member chews on the issue until it is ragged and soggy. But, a boy needs a hobby...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 05 - 01:00 PM Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope From: Tam the man - PM Date: 24 Apr 05 - 11:27 AM Why are these 'guests' frightend to give their names, as I say these 'guests' are cowards. I mean if you're going to run down everyone on this site including please have the balls to give a name. As it is clear that anonymous posting never has and never will be generally thought a good thing - perhaps the idea that it is OK for anonymous volunteers - (who are not prepared to use their name) to impose their judgement on fellow posters - (who are) - can be reviewed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 05 - 04:04 PM The indexing of a library's contents - do not involve re-naming the author's titles to the personal tastes of those employed by the library. I suspect these individuals would not be employed for very long - if they attempted such an impractical thing which showed so little respect for their authors. After posting the above - I had to smile when I saw these two thread titles together. Self-test For Literature Abusers Censorship on Mudcat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Veteran Member Date: 24 Apr 05 - 05:17 PM This thread is getting a bit like Little Hawk's process for making "Shatner" into a Mudcat icon-- LH deliberately repeated the name/concept frequently enough that it would become part of Mudcat reality that Wiliam Shatner IS an icon. He says himelf that he set out to do just that. And it worked. Now it's Shambles, attempting to construct a negative icon. See him including references in nearly every post now that what Joe does when he edits is "impose his personal taste." I don't think Joe actually does that.... instead, as an editor should, he does a pretty good job of reflecting the broad diversity of Mudcat when he consolidates and retitles things. That's exactly what an editor is supposed to do. Anyone who does that job in any setting carries that responsibility. They are entrusted with that responsibility because they will be loyal NOT to their personal tastes and opinions, but to the task they have been given and the tastes of the material's market. I think Shambles actually has hurt feelings over a very few editing actions and editor's insertions that had to do with his own posts, and that he's using the hurt as a basis for slanting his evaluation of ALL Joe does. He's not honest enough to say he felt hurt, and launches a censorship battle instead. To equate hurt feelings and "the sky is falling" over "lost freedom" is really not fair play. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 05 - 05:27 PM Is that El Greko again? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bill D Date: 24 Apr 05 - 05:44 PM from what I've see, El Greco has no problem signing his posts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 05 - 06:23 PM Perhaps you don't see quite so well these days Bill? Mudcat Censorship - a proposal |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 24 Apr 05 - 06:58 PM No, the last GUEST wasn't me, Roger. And the example to which you so inappropriately refer is of an April Fools, including the retraction after midday. 3+ weeks later, it's a great way to support paranoia, but not to support an argument. Relax, I am not out to get you - Xander will not post again until 1st April 2006. But I don't guarantee that he won't be rearing his bigoted head again next April Fools... you have been warned, everybody! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Same Veteran Member Date: 24 Apr 05 - 07:12 PM Using one widespread paranoia (see 2 below) to distract people from your own (see 1 below), Shambles? Verrrry cleverrrr. Main Entry: para·noia Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Greek, madness, from paranous demented, from para- + nous mind 1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations 2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:25 AM He's not honest enough to say he felt hurt, and launches a censorship battle instead. To equate hurt feelings and "the sky is falling" over "lost freedom" is really not fair play. I am however 'honest' enough to 'honestly' express and evidence my view and 'honest' enough to inform fellow posters of my identity. If folk do not choose to post openly and choose to remain anonymous - perhaps they should not judge and accuse others - of dishonesty, of not playing fair - or accuse them of anything else? In truth is there much left to accuse me of, blame me for or names that I have not already been called? If it is not 'The Greek' bearing yet more gifts and pretending to be someone else - I wonder who our 'veteren guest can be then? But I won't wonder for very long. Perhaps we can return to the discussion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 05 - 03:26 AM They are entrusted with that responsibility because they will be loyal NOT to their personal tastes and opinions, but to the task they have been given and the tastes of the material's market. Again a view that is NOT supported by the facts. If you do an Advanced Search on Birthday Threads for example – you will find much real evidence to the contrary. These interesting posts do tend to support the idea of The Mudcat Forum being 'taken-over' and now thought to be subject to the personal tastes and opinions of our volunteers. Including the following...... 0.7742 - Thread - Message - RE: BS: HB to MAX!!! - Apr 24 2004 5:39PM - catspaw49 Summary: BTW, this post is a product of Joe Offer so if you have a complaint, talk to your boy Joe. 'Course now, Ol' Joe will be around and say that's not true and Happy Birthday Max and all of that crappola. Geeiz Max, you really created a monster with Joe. Now I am not calling anyone a monster - but I find myself agreeing with Catspaw - when he does and remain safe - (for he can do and say what he pleases - no matter how abusive). Well said Spaw old Buddy! Attaboy etc, etc. LOL. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 25 Apr 05 - 03:54 AM Context, Roger, it's all in the context, which you left out - accidentally I am sure, because you are not a manipulative, pick-what-suits-me-to-attack-Joe kind of person, I am sure. The paragraph you chopped continues as follows: "...I mean have you ever seen the terrible things he says to poor Shambles? Poor Sham has to write 97 pages to try and explain and even then Joe doesn't understand. Come to think of it, at that point no one understands.....but the fault is still Joe's. Are you telling the world with your post that you can really not tell that this was a joke by catspaw? Or are you haveing your own little joke and you are pulling our strings for fun? If the latter, then - good one, Roger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Apr 05 - 04:14 AM Shambles. Mudcat can only be taken over if Max allows it to be taken over. As for Joe's "dislike" of birthday threads, he has made his personal feelings known for at least as long as I have been posting here. I notice that the thread you quoted from remains open with no evidence of censorship. Surley this example proves exactly what you are trying to disprove. Joe has not acted on personal feelings... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Apr 05 - 04:22 AM ....but much to Joe's chagrin, his opposition to birthday threads has become a running joke at Mudcat. Joe refuses to reveal when his bithday is. However, after several pints of strong ale at a pub in Yorkshire, he did reveal that he was born sometime in mid-August. Ever since, he has been plagued by birthday threads, during the entire month of August every year. Khandu has....well, don't get me started on khandu... [grin] So much for Joe having control over anything. -Joe offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 05 - 04:30 AM El Greko - I had never read that post in full - (as I made clear) I just quoted what appeared in the Avanced Search. But I did not miss much - as I have seen such comments many times before. Jon - are you really trying to tell us that posters have not been inhibited from starting and taking part in Birthday threads? More evidence of the current (and continuing) shambles. http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=80579&messages=10>where did my thread go bout murder in NY? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 05 - 04:38 AM Oops! where did my thread go bout murder in NY? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 25 Apr 05 - 04:55 AM Jon - are you really trying to tell us that posters have not been inhibited from starting and taking part in Birthday threads? Shambles, I was telling you that the evidence you provided pointed to Joe not taking any action over a type of thread he doesn't care much for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 25 Apr 05 - 05:13 AM More evidence of the current (and continuing) shambles. http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=80579&messages=10>where did my thread go bout murder in NY? What evidence Shambles? As far as I can make out, Joe was mopping up and trying to make the best of a situation caused by someone not understanding the system. When I try to trace what happened. We open with. Subject: Tune Req: 60 or 70 song about the murder in NYA copule of days later, we have another request - presumably by the same person. Subject: Lyr Req: Murder in NY in the 60'sThe same person then appears to have lost both previous posts and started. Subject: Lyr Req: where did my thread go bout Murder in NY As far as I can make out that rather than have 3 threads started by the same person on the same subject running at the same time, Joe sensibly (IMO) opted to make one thread current for all replies. You may also care to note. Subject: RE: Lyr Req: where did my thread go bout Murder in NY The poster understood where (s)he had made a mistake and thanked everbody. Far from being the shambles you suggest, it looks to me to be a "user messup" resolved quite neatly and amicably. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Apr 05 - 05:17 AM I seem to be forgetting to supply a name. Last 2 Guests were me... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 25 Apr 05 - 05:55 AM Thanks, Jon. So we're in an evidence-free zone as regards Joe's misdeeds. Roger, if this was a court of law and you were the prosecuting attorney, I believe the judge would have thrown the case out long ago (Richard Bridge could tell us about that). And if you were persisting in producing more flimsy non-evidence of this kind, he might have even charged you with contempt of court or wasting the court's time. (bracing myself for the next avalanche of "evidence" now...) ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 25 Apr 05 - 05:59 AM Of course, Roger could accuse Joe then of oppression - as in "by mentioning his dislike of birthday threads he inhibits the rest of us from offering birthday wishes to fellow 'catters". This is oppressive indeed. Couldn't sleep last night for worrying about it;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Veteran Member, Again Date: 25 Apr 05 - 09:31 AM Shambles, is it only "identified" Mudcatters you are willing to misquote and engage in endless smokescreening? Is this because you want to use certain members' popularity to make it seem like they agree with you (or should do so)? I've chosen a name for this thread, so what is your problem with the freedom Max gives us to post as Guests? I've raised an issue. Why are you ducking it in favor of perpetuating people's feelings about Guests? A little internal contradiction going on there-- which of Max's freedoms for us do you support, and which not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Donuel Date: 25 Apr 05 - 10:45 AM Having been banned on over 22 international websites, why is it I have have never found an instance of censorship of any of my contributions on Mudcat? It think this whole thing does not amount to a tempest in a shot glass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 05 - 12:46 PM Having been banned on over 22 international websites, why is it I have have never found an instance of censorship of any of my contributions on Mudcat? Just because YOU don't get hit with a bullet.............Most folk don't really mind unpleasant things being imposed upon other people. Watching others fall victim is said to be the basis of all humour..... And you call always call bullets somthing else. You can call genocide 'ethnic cleansing' for example. No we have no imposed censorship now on our forum. We have things called... Thread consolidation - routinely re- titling - limited editing - cross-indexing etc. The list of polite names goes on and on. All that is being requested is that the posters are consulted before any change is imposed upon their contribution. Not too much to expect - is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Donuel Date: 25 Apr 05 - 12:53 PM Creating an index and lists of common threads sounds like work to me. As long as a 'trace' does not dissappear it seems to me that all the good work we get for free on this forum is like delicious free frosting on a cake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 25 Apr 05 - 01:18 PM Roger: "All that is being requested is that the posters are consulted before any change is imposed upon their contribution. Not too much to expect - is it? George: Yes, actually, it is too much to expect from the moderators of a web forum to which you offer no volunteer effort or financial support. You are a guest here, whether nameless or with a handle, just as I am, and also hundreds of others; no more. No rights to "expect" anything. Take it as you find it. Enjoy its positives (which you do, I know you often post in non-BS threads), and ignore the "negatives", perceived or real. If you cannot ignore them, walk away. It's a shop. It offers you things. You don't like it, move on, just as you do in the High Street. And let the grizzling and imputations against the moderators die out - and this thread with them. But you won't. You can't let it go. It fills the day, it gives it purpose. You will resurrect threads from 2002 in the non-BS section (as you did today), to make the same points one more time. Many have tired of this game. Many got frustrated and lashed out, rightly or wrongly. But you have stamina - you will keep at it. Here's the news: so will I. Post by post, day by day, I will be responding and batting away anything you lob. I will not get angry; I will not get frustrated and lash out. I will just keep correcting. And why not? It's fun, and it's easy. Let this thread break the length records - you and me together we can do it, Roger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:18 PM As long as a 'trace' does not dissappear it seems to me that all the good work we get for free on this forum is like delicious free frosting on a cake. There is no such thing as a free lunch - seemingly even when you make it yourself. Max kindly provided the kitchen - all the rest of us freely provided the many and varied ingredients - so the way I have been encouraged -by Max to see it - the resulting cake is ours. There would appear now to be a great number of cooks who think that the whole of the cake is theirs and that we should be grateful and pay them for the left-over crumbs.... And a number of kitchen porters who feel it best - that they are always seen to agree with the cook's judgement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,jeffp Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:25 PM You make it seem as if the Joeclones have taken it upon themselves to perform this task without anyone's blessing. You know very well that that is not the case. Joe and the clones (good name for a band) operate with Max's permission and, presumably, at his behest. Your continued mischaracterization of Joe and the clones is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:25 PM There would appear now to be a great number of cooks who think that the whole of the cake is theirs and that we should be grateful and pay them for the left-over crumbs.... And a number of kitchen porters who feel it best - that they are always seen to agree with the cook's judgement Max has asked that the kitchen porters clean up after the cooks - who tend to be an exteremly messy lot. Until he objects - those who come in and eat a free lunch have no cause to complain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:38 PM Organizing Threads Or just 'tinkering for the sake of it? You judge if this imposition of one poster's taste upon others - is really needed and if so - what is wrong with with the fine search facilites and the music - non-music split that has been provided for us all? Have all these software changes now made the imposition of this needless and problematic personal judgement, opinion and taste upon fellow posters - without their knowledge or agreement - completely redundent? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bill D Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:39 PM I wonder if I could start a series of complaints about vague metaphors and prolong it until I get censored? *grin* Then I could have Shambles on MY side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:45 PM I wonder if I could start a series of complaints about vague metaphors and prolong it until I get censored? I have not noticed any reluctance on your part Bill - to post to complain. *Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bill D Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:52 PM Does complaining about excess complaining constitute excess complaining? boy, am I guilty! |