 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 22 Mar 05 - 06:52 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 - 08:21 PM Refresh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:28 PM ...and the silence was deafening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Azizi Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:52 PM We're still waiting... Maybe Shambles is writing on other threads. I've noticed that some of his post are on other subjects. So it's not fair to say that Shambles only has a one track mind. It's just that so much of his track seems to go in this direction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Azizi Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:58 PM And I let me go on record to say that I also will defend Shambles' right and anyone else's right to post whatever they want as long as what they post does not violate the posting guidelines. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:59 PM Actually, Azizi, the Roger you see in the other threads is the one that I used to enjoy reading and occasionally jousting with. He is a very good poster when he doesn't get hung up in this stuff, IMO. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:51 AM Make Shambles a Clonehead |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:02 AM A Song For Mudcatters |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Azizi Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:34 AM Roger, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the song that you wrote in 1999 and that you are pointing us to in 2005 was and is posted in a spirit of reconciliation with a theme of unity inspite of diversity. A portion of your song is "We have different views That's the way it'll always be It don't matter who's right or wrong We'll just agree to disagree" -snip- My Virgoian detail oriented nature mixed with my Sagittarius see the larger picture nature causes me to ask: Aren't there times that it does matter who is right and who is wrong? And how is 'right' and 'wrong' determined? Who determines right and wrong? Isn't it usually those in power? On this discussion forum, with regard to censorship-the topic of this thread-doesn't Max have the power and hasn't he delegated that power to Joe and "Joeclones?" And with regard to your refrain: "I look forward to that day And I hope it won't be long When we all get to sing the same song" -snip- Again, the words sound well meaning, and I'd love to give you the benefit of the doubt that they are meant well... Yet I have to ask, given the different views that you mentioned in your verse that I cited above, who determines the song that we all get to sing? Sounds to me like that might start a whole 'nuther arguement-excuse me-discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:57 AM Aren't there times that it does matter who is right and who is wrong? And how is 'right' and 'wrong' determined? Who determines right and wrong? Isn't it usually those in power? On our forum, I would strongly suggest that from its history, that who is right and who is wrong has never really mattered. That is why this forum was different. However, Joe - in his posts lately - has decided that what he judges to stay or goes - is not a matter of right or wrong. On this discussion forum, with regard to censorship-the topic of this thread-doesn't Max have the power and hasn't he delegated that power to Joe and "Joeclones?" As site owner Max to me is the one GOD. The forum is not a demoracy and Max is omnipotent. However I would and do seriously doubt and question if this omnipotence is a quality that can ever be delegated without totally messing-up the rest of us mortals? For would you say it then follows that - even when stting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right? As for which song - none of of them are right or wrong so whatever songs we do sing - will be fine. It is the singing together that matters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Paco Rabanne Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:09 AM Brucie has spoilt what was otherwise a thought provoking, nay dazzling thread, by posting 300 for no good reason!!! I demand that he be deleted from space and time for ever!!! I am offended, such behaviour is obnoxious!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:35 AM Passing judgement upon the worth of another contributor's post - to judge whether to respond - how to respond or to ignore it - is what we all do as part of a discussion here. Passing judgement upon the worth of another contributor's entire personality based on what they post - is not the same thing. It is futile and counter-productive - as that contributor will no doubt post again (however their worth may be judged by you) - as like the rest of us - they have that right to post - as Max has always extended that invitation to all of the public. They will then no doubt start to judge the worth of your entire personality in return - and so on....... In any public place - we will find things that are to our taste and things that are not and we choose to go to areas where things are to our taste. It is the same on our forum. It has been described as a big house with a different party going on in each room. A tolerant attitude would see us opening the door and moving on - if the party in that room was not to our taste. We would try another door until we found a party that was to our taste. For the minute we close that door and don't re-open it - as far as we are concerned - the party in that room is over. What appears to have happened and encouraged over time - is that although the house is big enough to accommodate all the parties - some posters seem to insist that the party that is not to their taste and which no one is forcing them to attend - is shut-down..... As there is no lack of anonymous volunteers prepared to do the shutting-down - there appears to be more and more shutting-down and more and more needless and counter-productive judgement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:33 AM The judgement emits on the value of the post of another contributing - with the judge if to answer - how to answer or be unaware of it - what do everything we as an element of a discussion here. Émettre the judgement on the value of the whole personality of another contributing based on what they announces - is not the same thing. It is futile and against-productive - as this contributing still do not want any post of doubt (however them in value can be judged by you) - as as the remainder of us - they have that to announce well - as the maximum always prolonged this invitation with all the public. They well then do not want any beginning of doubt to judge the value of your whole personality in the return - and so on....... In any public place - we will find the things which are with our taste and things which are not and we choose outward journey with the sectors where the things are with our taste. It is similar on our forum. It was described like large house with a different part continuing in each room. A tolerant attitude would see us opening the door and passing - if the part in this room were not with our taste. We would test another door until we found a part which was with our taste. For the minute we close this door and let us not reopen it more - with regard to us - the part of the fact the part. What seems to be produced and finished time encouraged - is that although the house is enough large to adapt to all the parts - some posters seems to insist on the fact that the part of which is not with their taste and of which nobody forces them to be occupied - is the stop..... Because there is no lack of anonymous volunteers ready to make closing-towards bottom - it seems y to have more and more closing-towards bottom and more and more a more useless and against-more productive judgement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Wolfgang Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:47 AM Whenever I read someone (Spaw etc.) arguing seriously with Shambles I think by myself, don't they know by now that he never addresses the points made in such serious posts but only repeats himself as if he could not engage in a real conversation? But once in a while I get tempted to engage in what I consider a completely futile attempt when I see it by others. No, I don't think my attempt is any better (rather the opposite), I just feel it's my turn. The forum is not a demoracy and Max is omnipotent. However I would and do seriously doubt and question if this omnipotence is a quality that can ever be delegated (Shambles) I do not at all understand what you mean, Shambles. (1) If you complain about the delegation act as such, then you have to complain to Max, as Jon has often pointed out without getting a reasonable response. (2) If you want to say that omnipotence cannot be delegated you're shooting down a straw-man for delegation of omnipotence was never the matter. It would be new to me, for instance, that the clones (and the original) could shut down the forum. Max has delegated a part of his power, complain to him if you object to that. Your next paragraph ("for would you say it then follows that...") is an exercise in illogical argumentation. It presupposes nonsense and therefore the 'conclusion' you want us to disagree with (the anonymous volunteers are always right) does not follow at all. And BTW, Max is omnipotent in the sense of being able to shut down this site but from that does not follow he is right whenever he does something. These are two very different concepts. Passing judgement upon the worth of another contributor's entire personality You do it implicitely and not explicitely, Shambles, so don't complain if someone does it explicitely. From my point of view, you pass judgement for instance about my ability to understand what I read by reposting with slightly changed words the same arguments and by copying and reposting something everybody has already read themselves. You judge that I need the repetition for getting the correct understanding. I wish you could accept that I for instance read what you read, see what you see and still don't share your opinion. After the first couple of times any further repetition implicitely declares anybody else as dumb. I object to that. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:57 AM "Fascinating," as Spock used to say... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:16 AM 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: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:09 PM Wolfgang Max is everywhere and sees all. Discussions do develop. This conversation had moved on to the point made by Azizi about right or wrong and if the power to determine this had been delegated. My point is that the site owners arbitary judgement can be accepted without too much trouble but the delegation of this arbitary judgement to many others - presents more problems. As demonstrated. Perhaps you could also answer a question? For would you say it then follows that - even when stting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:25 PM Perhaps the whole quote should be provided or if not - some indication should be provided that you have 'snipped' it? What i said was - However I would and do seriously doubt and question if this omnipotence is a quality that can ever be delegated without totally messing-up the rest of us mortals? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:28 PM Roger, What you just said doesn't stack up. If you accept Max's arbitrary judgement, as you say, why do you not accept the delegation of such judgement to the volunteers? It is still arbitrary, so what's the difference? Why is one Max's arbitrary judgement better than another's? After all, being omnipotent, he can always retract the delegation - but his (arbitrary) judgement remains that the delegation works. A sort of "he sees it - and it is good". Glory be to Max. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Wolfgang Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:33 PM Perhaps you could also answer a question? (Shambles) 'Also' is hilarious as you don't, but I can oblige: No. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:47 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? If you have read my many posts you will have already seen the answer to your question. Anonymous or known volunteer judges do not solve this problem - as currently structured - they create a different problem. I have no wish to join their ranks - although I am sure they will all be glad to have me.... Whatever our volunteers think - and despite their attempts to shape our forum by their imposed judgement, deltions and closures - it is the public and the example set by them - that will continue to shape our forum. So what is done differently - is up to you and me........ 1 Every poster should always be encouraged to accept that this is a public discussion forum where everyone has been invited by Max to contribute on an equal basis. 2 It is not a courtroom or a market where we are encouraged to judge each other's suitability to post. 3 That the example we set - positive or negative - judgemental or accommodating - will be followed. How is that for a start? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Noreen Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:48 PM No, they're not always right, but I agree with their judgement. On the odd occasion when one of them has 'cracked' (as they are only human, unlike Max...) due to incessant illogical argument being repeated at them, the event has been reflected on and apologised for, if necessary. Would that all posters were as reflective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavergis Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:55 PM Reflective posters are useless, Noreen - you can't read them! Roger, there are some (very few) cases where deletion could be allowed, I think, namely when a potentially libellous comment has been made; or when personal information about someone has been disclosed, that could be open to abuse; that would be to keep Max safe from prosecution, as the owner of the forum. But overall, I agree with you - let everyone post according to their knowledge, temperament and conscience; and let everyone else allow them the freedom to do so. We are big boys and girls and can deal with some abuse; and if we can't, we go somewhere else to play. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Wolfgang Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM Be more specific, Shambles: - People have started several threads with exactly the same lyrics request within minutes. Joe deletes/closes all but one to ensure a better discussion? What would you do? - Someone's private E-Mail has been posted recently by someone else. Joe has erased it when he saw it. What would you do? - Spam or links to pornographic sites have been posted. Joe deletes them. What would you do? Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM Xander, you talk rubbish - as Martin Gibbons might have said in more flowery language :-) Absolute freedom is open to absolute abuse and would destroy this forum. Normal rules of civility should apply, and where they do not, the clones should be allowed to trim offending or time-wasting (or disk space-wasting) texts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:05 PM If you accept Max's arbitrary judgement, as you say, why do you not accept the delegation of such judgement to the volunteers? It is still arbitrary, so what's the difference? Why is one Max's arbitrary judgement better than another's? It is not - but it is less confusing. Would you not agree that with children - one arbitary authority (right or wrong) will easier to accept and be less confusing to the chilren than more than one - all making different arbitary decisions? If this parent delgates authority to a nanny etc - would they be wise to subject their children to a whole different range of abitary authority? I suggest that when you feel that you must delegate on sensitive issues like imposed censorship - it is wise not to set loose a whole load of anonymous individuals all making their own arbitary judgements in the dark and taking action based on this no matter how well-meaning the intention is. If it must be done - should it not be open, fair and have a clear objective? Is that really the case now?
Of course, we cannot submit their actions to review by the entire forum - What we delete is material that we do not want seen in a public forum, for one reason or another. Joe, Jeff, and Max conduct the review of the actions of the clones. Jeff and I consult with each other several times a day, and we consult with Max when he's available. But no, we're not about to ask permission of the entire Forum every time we do some sort of editing. That's not how life works. Ordinarily, people are trusted to do the work they do, and are not required to ask permission from people outside their work structure. The Clones report to Jeff and Joe, and ultimately Max. Jeff and Joe report to Max. That's our structure. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM ...except we are not children, Roger. The argument again does not stack up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:25 PM It's amazing. I had no idea the internet was available on the planet Praumoq. Do you get broadband service there Roger or is that not available yet? Please go and start a forum. I am just dying to know how it all turns out for you. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:32 PM No, they're not always right, but I agree with their judgement. Always? Why? On the odd occasion when one of them has 'cracked' (as they are only human, unlike Max...) due to incessant illogical argument being repeated at them, the event has been reflected on and apologised for, if necessary. 'That old double standard has me in its spell' I have yet to be aplogised to for the personal attacks mounted on me and for the incitement for others to do this - from our volunteers. .........All I have seen so far are excuses from them and for them. I am sorry but we are all human (yes even me). But it is generally accepted that more is expected from those who are placed or volunteer for special positions of trust. Especially those who would feel qualified to judge others. Most of the cracking' you refer to, has come because those who feel qualified to judge us - consider that they are above judgement! I don't make this generally accepted rule but I doubt if you would so easily excuse a court judge or Government official who 'cracked' and started to abuse their position but still wished to continue in office? If our forum is to continue - we must all be responsible for our own actions at all times. I don't see that - on a public discussion forum where we are all invited to contribute as equals - there can be one expectation for one and not the other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:44 PM Hang on, Roger - if you advocate the ideal forum with no censorship, as Xander effectively says below, then anyone, clones included, can post what they like; and we are "big boys and girls" to take it. Whther they apologise to some or others, what standards they use, is immaterial - because there is no censorship. Why grizzle then? Or is the case that you do in fact want censorship, but from named individuals who state their reasoning/rules they follow? Reading through your many posts on the subject I find contradictions, and I am not sure which of the two above is the case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Wolfgang Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:46 PM Really, Shambles, you must tell it Max. He should know that the volunteers abuse their position. Please tell us then what his answer was. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:50 PM there are some (very few) cases where deletion could be allowed, I think, namely when a potentially libellous comment has been made; or when personal information about someone has been disclosed, that could be open to abuse; that would be to keep Max safe from prosecution, as the owner of the forum. This is refreshing. Yes of course that is sensible. But ironically as it stands - if the libellious comment was copy pasted to a music thread - it would be permitted to stay - according to Joe' latest version of his rules. But this brings us to the level of cenorship. If it was limited to the above - there is surely no reason why the decision to delete or not could easily be made by Max alone? Our volunteers could be then confined to changes requested by posters to their own posts and to bringing any more questionable contribution to Max's attention - for him to decide on possible editing action. This brings us to Mudcat's version of Catch 22. When criticised - the level of censorship is defended by those who wish to do it - as not very high. But when it is suggested that if it is SO low that Max alone could deal with any imposed deletions - suddenly the level of problems increase to a level that he could not deal with alone. Perhaps it is time for some folk to be a little honest and admit that they just like imposing their judgement and deleting the contributions of others and that is why they volunteer to do it?
No, Roger, we do not encourage or permit the posting of libelous music information. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: PoppaGator Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:56 PM I can't believe I just wasted x-number of minutes of my life reading through this crap. I've checked into it once or twice over the past couple of months and each time, I have regretted having done so. Well, the information about three-minute eggs and ostriches was mildly amusing and almost useful. The rest of it is all hot air, as far as I'm concerned. I'm generally opposed to censorship, and my answer to those who find something objectionable is for them to simply not buy/read/listen/tune-in to whatever it is that they dislike. Would that I could heed my own advice! It's discussions like this one that I'd rather not see, and I take responsibility for myself to ignore them. When I have a moment of weakness, like I did today, I blame no one but myself for my loss of resolve. I've never had a problem beng "censored" here. There have been a few isolated occasions when I've been glad to see some inadvertant posting of mine get deleted (like when I recently started a new thread twice). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:59 PM One advantage of living in a world of your own, is that everybody knows you there. Giok ¦¬] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:05 PM I'm sure Max could handle all of it alone if he were so inclined to do so and spent all of his time on this website. He doesn't......as you might have noticed. His good friend Jeff ahs been a major aide to him but Jeff too has a life. I assume that we all have a life Roger, even you and I. So Max, very early on, got Joe to do some of the stufffor him and was obviously happy enough with the results because all these years later, Joe is still here and doing the job Max requested. Max, Jeff, and Joe enlisted a few others to help out as well. They were not given the same overall powers that the three of them had but could help in the clean-up chores. Two things.........Anything and everything a clone does must be approved. If the clone's decision was out of line, the problem can be and is fixed. They do not act arbitrarily and without final approval. The other point is that to my knowledge, NO CLONE HAS VOLUNTEERED for the job. They have all been asked to help and agreed. Again, to the best of my knowledge, not a one has volunteered. If Max finds this acceptable, why can't you? Or does it really matter what Max finds acceptable? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:08 PM Hang on, Roger - if you advocate the ideal forum with no censorship, as Xander effectively says below, then anyone, clones included, can post what they like; and we are "big boys and girls" to take it. Whther they apologise to some or others, what standards they use, is immaterial - because there is no censorship. I have more than demonstrated here that I am well able to ignore many personal attacks and resist responding in kind and if I can do it so can others. So much of the justification for all this current censorship is not required However, I was pointing out - in an answer to another post that stated that apolgies were currently given and on this current set-up -(with anonymous volunteers imposing their judgement upon the cotributions of others) - that I had not received an apology - not that really expected or wished for this. My objection to these personal attacks and the incitement to others to do this - coming publicly from our volunteers - is the establishment and acceptance of the double standard and the poor example this is setting. When the whole justification for all these anonymous volunteers is to protect us from personal attacks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:38 PM Wolfgang - is this Max's 'volunteer application form? I suspect I will fail......But you did ask me some questions - so I must answer. - People have started several threads with exactly the same lyrics request within minutes. Joe deletes/closes all but one to ensure a better discussion? What would you do? First accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that I had no control over the postings of others. Leave them both alone (or link them) so that posters would be aware that such a problem is possible to enable them to avoid it in the future There is time to show the respect of first informing the originators about any proposed action (where this is possible by PMs). - Someone's private E-Mail has been posted recently by someone else. Joe has erased it when he saw it. What would you do? Again - I would first accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that I had no control over the postings of others. Inform the originator, explain and ask if they wish me to remove it. - Spam or links to pornographic sites have been posted. Joe deletes them. What would you do? Again - I would first accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that I had no control over the postings of others. Ignore them and let them die a natural death. Imposing your judgement, deleting or closing threads - without the knowledge of the poster - is a BIG DEAL. Where it is possible NOT to do this - it should always be preferred. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:41 PM Oh you definitely need to start a forum!!! I gotta' see this! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:45 PM Roger you just defined anarchy. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:51 PM shambles - though this is a forum that is open to the public it is a privately owned site. Max and/or his designess have the right to delete or edit anything posted here. it is similar to the right of free speech in the US. Everyone has the right to publicly express their opinions - however - in a privatly owned establishment - even one that caters to the public - the owners and/or management may completly legally prohibit certain language or expel clients/customers/visitors whose speech they do no concur with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:54 PM You can start a forum at MSN. Free and you would do the moderation--if any. I too would love to know how it goes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:55 PM Roger, I think that if you acted as you suggested in answering those 2 questions below (email/pornography) you would be liable to prosecution as the owner of the site. Certainly in the case of allowing someone's email address to remain there in a post. There are lawyers out there that would tie you in knots over that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:04 PM shambles - though this is a forum that is open to the public it is a privately owned site. Max and/or his designess have the right to delete or edit anything posted here. Yes but would you not agree that with any right - comes responsibilty? For would you say it then follows that - even when setting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right Perhaps time for you to answer Wolfgang - I have answered yours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:11 PM Roger, I think that if you acted as you suggested in answering those 2 questions below (email/pornography) you would be liable to prosecution as the owner of the site. Certainly in the case of allowing someone's email address to remain there in a post. There are lawyers out there that would tie you in knots over that. I did say that I would fail.......... But do we not all first have to accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that we have no control over the postings of others? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Wolfgang Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:23 PM Perhaps time for you to answer Wolfgang - I have answered yours. (Shambles) Huh? Don't you read my posts? Look up my 23 Mar 05 - 12:33 post. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:27 PM Roger, Please start a site. I will visit there. Stay here, but start one too. Would love it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:30 PM But do we not all first have to accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that we have no control over the postings of others? no - because that is an implied fallacy. "we" as visitors to the site have no control. However - Max and his designees have both the control and the right to delete or edit any content of the site. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:33 PM Sorry Wolfgang - I did see the post but didn't realise it was in answer to this. For would you say it then follows that - even when setting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right So you wouldn't say that this was right. So we agree that it is wrong when they do this then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,MMario Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:36 PM Shambles - his reply to your question is that they are not ALWAYS right. (Which is the question you asked) It is not an either or situation. You are twisting your own words as well as people's responses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:40 PM no - because that is an implied fallacy. "we" as visitors to the site have no control. However - Max and his designees have both the control and the right to delete or edit any content of the site. Do you accept that whatever they may subsequently do - they first have to accept that they have no control over what posters choose to post to a forum - that is open to the public.....? Unless they write all the posts themselves... So in fact you could say that as what we post is up to us - we have the control (at least over our own posting)? |