 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:39 PM See my previous post on this thread, Joe :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:46 PM El Greko is counting the days until THE day. George, if you get me sucked into this one I will deserve it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 20 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM Well, the irony of it all is that Shambles has never been censored. Whether my invited contributions to Max's website had ever been the unfortunate victim of imposed censorship by our anonymous volunteers or not has never been the issue (for me). However, if I had made such a statement as the above - there usually are plenty of posters who would post to point out what they consider to be even the smallest error of fact - but as that is unlikly to happen in this case - I suppose it falls to me to point out that Joe Offer's statement is not true. Unless of course you don't consider it to be censorship when your postings are deleted along with the entire contents of a thread - because our anonymous volunteers cannot be bothered to distingush between the offending posts and the rest? Or when the title of a music thread (containing a song parody) is changed without your knowledged and against your wishes and you are then given the ultimatum of accepting the change - or of having your musical contribution sent to the BS section? And talking of irony - as the Chief of the Mudcat Editorial Team was not aware that some anonymous volunteer had deleted a post from this very thread (on the subject Mudcat censorship) - perhaps it is unwise of him to make such statements? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 20 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM Well, the irony of it all is that Shambles has never been censored Exactly. Harpgirl, no-one has demanded that Roger be censored, we just wish he'd shut up! He's the boy who cries wolf. One day (perhaps it's already been & gone) the wolf might really turn up. If we're relying on Shanmbles for our early warning system, we're stuffed, because next to no-one cares what he has to say on the subject any more (except to tell him to shut up). Oh, & Roger, thank you for proving my earlier point. You continue to answer other posts, but ignore the awkward question. You know, the one I asked, that you really don't seem to want to answer. Just in case you've forgotten, Do you ever stop to wonder why you make so little progress with your arguments, & does it ever occur to you to wonder whether you are out of step with the rest of the board & whether you ought to reconsider your opinions? (And, yeah, I looked up the other one eventually - I think you're talking crap. I'm not going to criticise Joe for those responses. I've bitten after severe provocation too. And Roger, you piss people off! Why are you so totally blind to that?) The facts are all here - it is up to those reading this to judge. And the judgement of the majority of those who have posted here is that you're in the wrong as usual. Now what are you going to do? Decide that you're better informed, or not the sycophantic lickspittles that you'd like to mark everyone else down as? I know what you're not going to do. You're not going to shut up, because you can't even face & answer the question that I keep asking you, & you keep hoping no-one else will notice... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 20 Mar 05 - 02:45 PM Shambles you are nit picking, and if the complete thread that was deleted was so important, how come you're the only one still whinging? Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 20 Mar 05 - 04:50 PM Because this is all a silly game by a pitiful man who gets his validation from the abuse heaped on him. You saw a clue above when Shambles posted "Perhaps Max will explain?". If Max were to do this, then Shambles could sit back and get some validation. Of course, then he would seek more. Shambles,I hate to break it to you but Max is someone that Joe and the rest of us reprobates made up to give you something to aspire to. It is all done with Photoshop and mirrors. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: bobad Date: 20 Mar 05 - 05:14 PM " gets his validation from the abuse heaped on him" Big Mick you've hit the nail on the nail on the head there. There also seems to be no shortage of folks who get their validation from keeping him validated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:25 PM Oh alright then - for a bit of peace. Do you ever stop to wonder why you make so little progress with your arguments, & does it ever occur to you to wonder whether you are out of step with the rest of the board & whether you ought to reconsider your opinions? Yes. BTW if you look back at the post of - 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 AM - you will see that Flamenco Ted's (obnoxious) message - that some unknown volunteer deleted without the Chief of the Mudcat Editorial Staff being aware of this action - has silently slipped back into this thread. There is no explanation of why it is not now considered by some - to be 'obnoxious' any more - but it does now look a bit greener than when I last saw it............ Is it really too much to expect that any future editing actions can be a bit more limited and proportionate than they are currently? These posts may be irritating to some - but to describe them as 'obnoxious' in order to delete them - when there are far more 'obnoxious' posts that do safely remain - is hardly proportionate or sensible. These posts do at least provide some fun to those who post them and as there is no question of them causing any real offence - perhaps it can be accepted that these are viewed as simply a matter of taste? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:16 PM HELP make the rules, Shambles. That's what Max said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 21 Mar 05 - 01:51 AM Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. It is as well to provide all the words of the quote. The word 'us' is important - its use by Max in this context - is inclusve and accommodating. It means ALL of 'us'. The use now - of the word 'we' by our anonymous volunteers - in the sense of which of Max's invited contributions 'we' allow and what we routinly delete - is exclusive and divisive. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. Seems clear enough....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 21 Mar 05 - 03:16 AM What does the re-insated message add to the sum of human knowledge, the erudition of Mudcat, and the average mental age of some of its contributors? If the deleted thread you complained about was as intelligent as that, I feel that I haven't missed much. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavergis Date: 21 Mar 05 - 04:28 AM That isn't the point, Giok. Shambles is right in pointing out the duplicity of the different use of 'we'. If this cavalier attitude can apply to any message, where does it end? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 21 Mar 05 - 04:37 AM Ted's message was deleted. Then reinstated. Whoever thought it offensive enough to delete was clearly acting without any consultation from Joe etc. Irregardless of it's merit giok, the clone was wrong, and proven so by it's reinstatment. Shambles 1 --- Clone 0.
The requirement is for Clones to consult with Joe and Jeff after a deletion, so that the decision to delete can be reviewed. This deletion was reviewed, and the message in question was undeleted. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Gurney Date: 21 Mar 05 - 06:13 AM Moderator. "Any substance used to slow down neutrons in nuclear reactors." Wordweb dictionary. Different substance, same effect, as Brucie might say when in a benevolent mood. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: harpgirl Date: 21 Mar 05 - 08:34 AM Mick: I find this remark about Roger objectionable and to be a personal attack: "Because this is all a silly game by a pitiful man who gets his validation from the abuse heaped on him. " Will you please use your powers as a clonehead and delete it? Thank you. harpgirl |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 21 Mar 05 - 11:00 AM Some people are starved for attention. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 21 Mar 05 - 11:35 AM Just as well I'm not a clone then guest! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 21 Mar 05 - 12:46 PM "That isn't the point, Giok. Shambles is right in pointing out the duplicity of the different use of 'we'. If this cavalier attitude can apply to any message, where does it end?" Anarchy. Chaos. Elections. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 21 Mar 05 - 01:05 PM Any other choices? G ¦¬] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 21 Mar 05 - 01:44 PM Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings From: Amos - PM Date: 04 Jan 04 - 02:07 PM Dear Lord, protect us from chicanery, From idle snipers, and inanery From those who choose to spend their time Concocting reams of tepid rhyme; But most of all, from those who would Pervert a forum meant for good, And thus corrupt our faint divinity With foulness cloaked in anonymity! Amen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 21 Mar 05 - 02:39 PM Anarchy. Chaos. Elections. . . . and TELEVISION. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Mar 05 - 03:20 PM And...Reality TV!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 21 Mar 05 - 03:21 PM . . . and OPRAH! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Azizi Date: 21 Mar 05 - 04:01 PM And the USA President & Congress!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 21 Mar 05 - 05:26 PM Your opinion is duly noted, HG. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 21 Mar 05 - 06:59 PM Sorry for the thread drift here, but does anyone know how long ya cook a three-minute egg for? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 21 Mar 05 - 07:04 PM My guess is, brucie, long enough so you know it's done. You don't want an underdone 3 minute egg, right? When I was still a young and inexperienced chimp, I heard it said that the watched pot never boils. I didn't believe it. I went out and got this pot, took it home, and sat down and watched it....for 15 hours! It never boiled. THEN I remembered, you gotta turn the stove on first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 21 Mar 05 - 07:06 PM Dang! That's it. So, like, ya start timing the egg when ya turn the stove on, right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 21 Mar 05 - 07:17 PM Could be. Either that or ya gotta get the element on the stove up to full temperature first and then ya start timin' it. It's tricky. When the eggs come out too hard or too soft, I line 'em up on the windowsill and use 'em for target practice. Or I would...if I hadn't cracked 'em open already. Ain't that a bitch? If there was a way of determinin' whether the egg ain't done right WITHOUT crackin' it open then it would be a lot better all around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 21 Mar 05 - 07:19 PM Got that right. I have this pet ostrich, and getting a three-minute egg from one of hern is a real chore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:04 AM Try holding up a stopwatch, set to 3 minutes, and a loaded gun, aimed at the ostrich. Look at the ostrich meaningfully as the seconds tick away toward zero. I predict the ostrich will produce the egg on time in 9 out of 10 cases. In the 10th case you fire the gun, makin' sure to just barely miss the ostrich, and the ostrich WILL produce an egg on the spot. This method has never failed for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:08 AM Should I stand the ostrich above the pot of boiling water? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:20 AM Yeah. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:16 AM This is getting VERY COMplicated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:57 AM Flamenco Ted If for your game - you wish your 100th post claims to remain and not be routinely deleted by our anonymous volunteers - the answer is simple. You post to make your claim but you also make a positive contribution to the thread that does add to the sum of human knowledge - on the lines of this one (and others) - Because this is all a silly game by a pitiful man who gets his validation from the abuse heaped on him. Such a positive contributions as this are safe from judgement and editing action by our volunteers - mainly because this was posted by one of them - and even when another posters states that they consider this post to be objectional and a personal attack upon another poster - it remains. This objection is simply noted (by the volunteer that made it!!! So that is the fine example being set by our volunteers - for the rest of us to follow - if you wany your post to remain - you also make an abusive personal attack on someone.......? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Paco Rabanne Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:06 AM Shambles, I totally agree with whatever it is you just said. Oh, 300 by the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Noreen Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:15 AM No its not |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Paco Rabanne Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:19 AM Stop it Noreen, or I will have you deleted! Oh, 400 by the way! Leadfingers, eat my shorts! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:20 AM You two want to be alone? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Wolfgang Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:36 AM No its not (Noreen) Noreen, you are passing your personal judgement on the worth of another poster's contribution. You are on the slippery slope leading directly into the next holocaust: First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Wolfgang (:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:44 AM Duct taping someone's mouth is censorship. Telling that person to shut the f#ck up is opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:49 PM And a valid contribution in the circumstances Brucie, but then some people apparently don't know about the old adage, 'Quit while you're ahead' Giok ¦¬] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavergis Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:49 PM No - telling him to shut the f#ck up is an instruction, an order. Certainly no opinion. Unless you usually issue your opinions in the form of orders... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:07 PM My opinion is that this is all about Shambles getting attention and gratification here that he can't get elsewhere. Fair enough, but could he come up with a new thing to bitch about for the next 7 years? This one is getting tired. Sorry HG, but that is my opinion. And for what it is worth, it is him that keeps bringing it up. My opinion is that this is an affliction for which there is help. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavergis Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:18 PM ...and my opinion is that Roger simply feels strongly about the way he perceives the moderation of this forum. I have no reason to think otherwise, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Noreen Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:25 PM Ah, since you put it like that, Wolfgang: I disagree with flamenco ted's mathematical deductions, but I will defend to the death his right to post them. 296 by the way |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 22 Mar 05 - 02:43 PM Xander: It could be an opinion as to what someone should do. It was not directed at or to Roger. It was a general statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 22 Mar 05 - 03:32 PM Roger/Shambles: If you were to become a clone, exactly what would you do to change things? Please be specific. I have read your many posts that remark on the present volunteers and what they do. What exactly would you do differently? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 22 Mar 05 - 03:49 PM 299 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 22 Mar 05 - 03:50 PM Yep--the BIG 300 |