 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:44 PM Unless ever post is previewed, NO they have no control over what gets posted. If I try to make the case that someone does nefarious things to sheep, that post will stand until it is deleted. Jaysus. That ain't rocket science. What the hell point are YOU trying to make? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Noreen Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:03 PM Did you hear about the man driving the opposite way down a one-way street? "Gee, there's a lot of people getting it wrong today- and no matter how much I tell them they're wrong they keep shouting back at me- and some of them have abused me!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,MMario Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:06 PM correct - there is no control over what is posted here EXCEPT that once posted it is subject to the whim of Max.* *note - among other things that Max has whimmed is that he allows certain other people to act as his extensions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:09 PM Even if you can get every single person to agree that the world is stationary - the truth is "The turtle moves" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:42 PM Shambles remember the old adage and STOP DIGGING. Giok ¦¬] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:47 PM From Billy Joel's "Angry Young Man": "...there's always a place for the angry young man With his fist in the air and his head in the sand And he's never been able to learn from mistakes So he can't understand why his heart always breaks And his honor is pure and his courage is well And he's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:11 AM 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. Again the comforting 'spin'. Are you asking us to acept that approval to delete - is FIRST subject to approval? 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? Did you hear about the man driving the opposite way down a one-way street? Yes - Wolfgang has already told it. But think about what you look like you are saying here. That if someone posts a view that is not generally agreed with on a public discussion forum - that it is OK for folk to be encouraged to post simply to abuse them and to tell them to go away? It is my view that those who wish to be driving where there is only one direction alowed - go out and start one. For that is NOT this site. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:16 AM Youth Is Wasted On The Young If the truth be told Experience is wasted on the old And youth is wasted on the young When you have your youth You have no finer weapon than the truth And you wield it like a sword When youth is gone You need all your strength just to go on And the truth now cuts you to the bone If the truth be told, Experience is wasted on the old And youth is wasted on the young Which one is right The one certain, keen and ready for the fight? Or the one, unsure, who knows the price to pay Who are the fools The ones who want to change all the rules? Or the ones, who have changed them once before? If the truth be told, Experience is wasted on the old And youth is wasted on the young Roger Gall 1997 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:33 AM Nice one, Roger. (By the way, you share the same name with the father of France Gall, who wrote her hit "Poupee de cire, poupee de son" with which she won Eurovision back in my wasted youth). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:56 AM *note - among other things that Max has whimmed is that he allows certain other people to act as his extensions. That word has a sinister sound to it. Do you mean like in hair braids or telephones or like in Max's Angels? But is there any real need for any of these volunteers to be anonymous when anonymous posting has been such a contentious issue? Pretending that any form of anonymous posting will be ever thought to be generally favourable is hardly realistic - is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Mar 05 - 04:26 AM Not sure that it should matter much – but am I angry? …...If so who with and why? I am probably not angry but I am a little sad. However I do think that there is anger. And this anger and the judgement and intolerance that follows - comes from an unrealistic view of what a public forum can be. The idea that threads and their titles - started by the public looking for information will clearly match the idea that Joe or say Wolfgang considers as the most informative title or not be dublicated – is unrealistic. That Joe, Wolfgang and others may see our forum as a site for research which needs an efficient means of finding information is a problem - as it is described as a discussion forum and most people never have seen or used our forum in this limited way. The result of this thinking is that (amongst other things) Joe and his volunteers have slowly taken control over what a thread is called. Probably nothing too sinister an intent - in this but why must this change always be imposed without the originators knowledge? Could it always be the case in future - that no change is made to a thread title unless the originator is first contacted and agrees to the proposed change? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Noreen Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:42 AM That if someone posts a view that is not generally agreed with on a public discussion forum - that it is OK for folk to be encouraged to post simply to abuse them and to tell them to go away? You're doing it again, Roger- (well, I suppose Michael Howard is getting away with doing it over and over again...). You've been a member here long enough to know this isn't what happens. Most people here give others a chance to have their say, and even debate with them rationally (as many are doing here with you, for heaven's sake!) The only time (as a rule) people get annoyed here is when arguments are being repeated ad nauseam and the responses aren't listened to or heeded. Tell me Roger, why, do you think, are you a voice crying in the wilderness here? Don't you think others would be coming in on your side to support you, if all you say is valid? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:42 AM Even if you can get every single person to agree that the world is stationary - the truth is "The turtle moves" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Wolfgang Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:16 AM Shambles, you also have not read my 23 Mar 05 - 09:47 AM post, at least not the part in which I dealt with your question before you started repeating it ad nauseam. The question as you have asked it is nonsensical, but since you have insisted I have given you a short response. I was not at all surprised you have made the wrong inference from my response as MMario has pointed out already. Either your debating tactic or your thinking is very muddled. Basically, you have an interesting point which deserves debate and what you wish for is not obvious nonsense. It is not your opinion as such leading to responses you do not like as you seem to think, it is the way you argue for your ideas: (1) You're repeating often verbatim the same questions and remarks as if you wouldn't listen at all to people you pretend to be in a conversation with. That either implicitely tells the others that they are dumb for they obviously need information repeated or in my eyes comes close to the behaviour of a kid asking for the umptenth time for something without listening to any response. (2) You exaggerate the problem, the consequences, the evil-mindedness of your opponents and the responses you get in a way that makes them unrecognisable to others. Your Niemöller quote which you don't seem to understand is but one example. (3) You try to trick people into false analogies and wrong conclusions. If you say that then..If you accept that then....Don't you think that....In close to none of these examples your premisses are clear. In most instances, my impression is that what you say is not what you want to imply. That makes a response extremely difficult, for if one responds to what you have said (and ignore what you may have meant) you invariably understand it wrong and try the next wrong inference. (4) Your responses when you are asked are wishy-washy and seldom to the point. From my experience with you in threads and PMs I can say that you rarely do respond at all to points made (without an explicit question) and not always to explicit questions. You restate your point with slightly different words unless you even copy and paste. My impression is: "Is he thinking he's in a conversation or what?" Your response often gives no indication that you have read or understood what someone else has said. That parody of a debate sometimes gives me the hard to resist urge just to make fun of you for that seems like the only sane way to react. If I had not written this serious post I may have written a parody of Roger with the task of controlling entrance tickets: "Here's my ticket" "Let us first agree that we are both humans with equal rights who have no..." "Don't you want to see my ticket?" "...other way but unprejudiced communication on an equal basis..." "OK, I'll go in then" "...founded on the bill of rights and the UN convention..." Sometimes I even think that you damage your cause more than any control and censorship freak could dream of. "Shut up" in this context is a well meant advice of a friendly person to stop you doing more damage to your cause than you have already done. Or at least, give it sometimes a break of two weeks or so. After such a break you may post more reasonable and clearly and people may be more willing to listen to the good sides. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:17 PM Someone said the world needs people like Roger 'sticking to his guns', etc. Probably true, but find a fuckin' issue that is worthy of this type of approach. Fight world hunger, guns, no guns, abortion on demand, no abortion on demand. On a scale of one to ten, this fucking issue don't rate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:39 PM Wolfgang I agree with whatever it was that you might of just said... I think that I prefer less wordy and more direct personal attacks - than those like this one - that are dressed-up to sound as if they were not this. And made in the pretence of making some contribution to the debate. Whilst carefully avoiding addressing any of the issues - which remain to be addressed - however you may see my shortcomings in debating them. If I have inferred the wrong thing from your answer as - I suspect others may have also - perhaps you could clarify it for us? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:44 PM Never try to teach a cat to sing. It's a waste of your time and it irritates the cat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:29 PM Shambles it's qutie simple really. The issues over the levels of censorhip, people working anonymously, whether policies are applied evenly, etc. are perhaps worthy of discussion. The way you go about it and the premis you use to base your arguments on are oten illogical and leads one to think that your interest is not in discussing matters in a straightforward manner but you are using the issues for other reasons. If on the other hand, rather than discuss the matter, you wish to voice a complaint, you have a source you have yet to try. As far as I see it Shambles, it's a bit like an equation. If you credit Max on one side you need the credit on the other side to balance it out. Let's go for: "The posts made by people invited to the forum by Max are being dealt with by Joe Offer who Max appointed and the volunteers also appointed by Max in a system created by Max are causing problems and the system Max created is being abused by the people appointed by Max" Why can't you say that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:29 PM When you have shot the messenger so full of all sorts of arrows that they look like a porcupine and there is no point in joining in and trying to find fresh places to shoot them - you could just leave them to die....... Or if they still struggle on to deliver their message - you may as well listen to the message and give it some serious thought - and possibly wonder why some many arrows are being fired in order to prevent you from doing this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:46 PM Roger, Roger... Wolfgang's last post was the friendliest you have had in a long time. Yet you chose to misread and belittle it ("I prefer less wordy and more direct personal attacks - than those like this one "). Well done - you just shat all over Wolfgang's goodwill. Your vehemence in pursuing your goals is exemplary. Your ability to describe your objectives clearly is woefully inadequate. Your ability to recognise friend from foe is - well, nonexistent. You have some points to make. We think we see them through your wordage, and some even agree and try to rephrase them to help. What do you do? Flail at those who try to help you. Sod it. You're a lost cause mate, I'm out of here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:19 PM No - telling him to shut the f#ck up is an instruction, an order. Sorry, Xander, no it isn't (normally). For it to be an order pre-supposes that the 'orderer' has the authority to enforce either obedience or punishment. In most cases on Mudcat, this is not true. I, personally, wish Roger would "shut the f#ck up" on the subject of censorship, because (in the words of Flanders & Swann) he's a thundering thumping boar.* I don't have the authority to enforce that desire, therefore I am expressing an opinion, not giving an order. And since not even Roger has suggested (as far as I remember) that he has been censored on this particular subject, the Clones (who do have the power to 'punish', by deletion at least) obviously haven't given an "instruction" either. R *On the subject of censorship, be it noted! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:40 PM Oh alright then - for a bit of peace. Oooo! Roger! What I could do with that quote!! ;-) Seriously, many of the rest of us would like a "bit of peace" from this particular piece of your monomania. I know I've been quite aggressive at you over this, but it's nothing personal. Consider this - my impression is that most of the respondents in this thread find your argument to be as unpleasantly insistent as I've quite deliberately been towards you (it shouldn't take 4 repetitions of a question to get an answer out of someone as free with his opinions as you, should it?!). Why should we listen to you, when you won't listen to us? Why is your almost lone opinion worth more than our several & many? I acknowledge your rather belated answer, but it is so uninformative as to be worthless. It seems to me that you still try to slide away from the question that is being asked of you. You answered the "Have you", but you didn't answer the implicit "why?" You can't answer "why" with "yes". So? Regards, R |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:02 PM Wolfgang 24 Mar 05 - 08:16 AM Like EG, I can't see where you think that was a personal attack. Or, rather, I can see where someone of the mindset that you persistently display would view that as a personal attack! Like EG, I despair of you, I really do. You ask for logical responses, you ask to be persuaded... then you dismiss everything offered, on one pretext or another. Can you answer the question that so many can't? How do you prove to the paranoid that everyone isn't out to get him? Because, from where I am standing (&, I suspect, EG, Guest Jon, Wolfgang, & many others) you are the paranoid. How do we disturb the internal logic of your arguments? No-one seems to have managed it so far. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:12 PM Oh, and BTW, Roger, demanding a quick answer from Wolfgang (which you did at 23 Mar 05 - 03:04 PM) is profoundly hypocritical, considering how long it took you to respond to my very much repeated question, considering how long it took you to answer brucie, & so on & forth. Did you really stop to consider what you were doing/saying/posting? Because, at the moment, it doesn't look very much like it to me, at the least! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:33 PM Raedwulf, I suppose I still can't work out whether he is paranoid or not. A simple thread started like. I'm beginning to feel that the levels of censorship at Mudcat are getting a little to heavy, I wonder whether the policy of having "invisible volunteers" is wise[...]Would not trouble me. Shambles goes Posts made by people invited by Max to our forum are been tampered with by invisible volunteersMaybe my examples aren't too good but the point I'm trying to make is that Shambles, not directly, but by implication is accusing others for obeying instructions that one can assume ultimately can only come from Max - at least if one gives him credit for control of his own forum. Quite why Shambles refuses to see this simple logic is beyond me. If if it is not paranoia, it is a thinly veiled attack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:42 PM Wolfgang, old cyber friend, you are absolutely correct. My history on this forum will show that I enjoy debate. But I tried the same logic and reason on Roger, and came to the same conclusion. I gave up. He isn't listening, and he loves it up on the cross. In his delusional state, he believes that he is a voice crying in the wilderness. That is why I adopted a different tact. I just tell him he is an idiot that everyone here sees through. Self fulfilling prophecy and all that. He creates the conditions that make people angry and then puts himself on the cross and complains about the personal attacks. Provides some sort of twisted validation, I guess. Pathetic, IMO. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:39 PM I started a thread "Help The Shambles Find A Worthy Cause." A few people contributed suggestions like "End world hunger" before it was declared a personal attack and deleted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Donuel Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:45 PM How about these people who obliquely call for the murder of Terry's husband? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:26 AM 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 Perhaps someone can expain why it is that even when facts are clearly established - like when it is demonstrated in this very thread that volunteers are so empowered and do in fact delete another poster's contribution without any prior or any other approval and without Joe's knowledge – such as Flamenco Ted's posting in this thread – all of this is ignored -in favour of the sport currently being encouraged - of shooting the messenger and calling them names? The 'spin' of what is supposed to be happening (as opposed to the reality) is perpetuated and supported by personal and abusive attacks (some from these volunteers) and as a result the example is given that making personal attacks and responding in kind to these– is acceptable. Flamenco Ted's innocuous posting is deleted from this thread by persons still unknown for being judged 'obnoxious'. The result of the example this sets of hypocrisy, inefficiency and double standards – is that the very posts that the majority of posters would consider as 'obnoxious' and the main reason they may support the current example of censorship – are left in place. You can see a current example of where we stand - in a thread running at the same time as this. What is antisemitism? Meanwhile under the cloak of protecting us from abusive personal attacks changes are routinely being imposed upon the contributions of posters looking for information – without their permission or knowledge - by anonymous volunteers. And those that post to support all this clearly increasing and damaging nonsense on our forum – question me and accuse me of being mad? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:21 AM Yes Shambles, I do question you. Not everyone is saying you are necessarly wrong with some of your observations or that there may not be issues worthy of discussion. The fact is though you have been banging your head against a brick wall for ages and it should be clear to you that you are getting nowhere. Another fact is that you have yet to try the top man. In this case it happens to be Max but I'd be telling you to go to Joe if it was his site, similarly with Mick, Jeri (if she could be the top man), etc. It is simple normal business procedure. Normal peoople either take the matter higher or let the matter drop. If you try to take the matter to Max and either find you are ignored or that you are told that Max approves of the current actions of the volunteers, I might understand you trying to do something in the forum as you have nowhere left to go but that is not the case with you. You refuse to try the most sensible option first. It is for that reason I question your sanity and/or motives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:55 AM I'm sorry, Shambles. Sometimes, you make sense, but not today. I can't figure out what it is you're saying or what you're accusing us of now. volunteers are so empowered and do in fact delete another poster's contribution without any prior or any other approval and without Joe's knowledge
Meanwhile under the cloak of protecting us from abusive personal attacks changes are routinely being imposed upon the contributions of posters looking for information – without their permission or knowledge - by anonymous volunteers.
And I have no idea what the anti-Semitism thread has to do with this one, except that Martin Gibson has been acting up there, as he sometimes does. All I can say is that we're working on him. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:35 AM Another key point you miss, Roger, is that we are not required to refrain from posting our own opinions. The fact that I am a Mudelf does not preclude me from expressing my opinion about you. The fact that I tire of your incessant babbling is simply my opinion. And I am well aware that others whose opinions I care about and whom I like, such as Harpgirl, are not happy with my stance. But, quite frankly, I am tired of your shit. I am tired of saying, "Oh hell, that is just Roger". Were I able to use my so called powers in the way you think I can, I would have banned you, and deleted every posting you make from here forward. I recognize, however, the wisdom in giving you some threads (such as this one) to run your mouth in. Hence I always leave any decisions on your posts to Joe. Max, whom I have the greatest respect for and consider a close personal friend, apparently thinks there is some value in having you around. Joe, whom is another close friend and whom I respect greatly, apparently is of the opinion that banning you is not a wise move. I will submit to their judgement. The only posts of yours that I delete or edit, are those that are dup's or to fix a link if necessary. One last comment before I leave this thread. You should thank Joe. He has a much lighter hand on the delete button than some of the rest of us. Your attacks on him are unjustified. Joe is actually a calming influence. He is committed to keeping it clean, by combining threads that are about the same thing, or not allowing certain types of posts. I think he and Jeff have the best handle on Max's philosophy of letting it roll, yet he brings a necessary sense of organization and limited moderation to keep it from descending into a mishmash. You should be thanking him, not attacking him. And it is still my opinion that you need to see a professional. I thought that years ago (1999)when you made a spectacle of your leaving, and I think it now with your need to bang a drum no one thinks has merit. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:15 PM So, we have shambles who tirelessly posts to put forward his argument. And we have the regular little band who tirelessly post to tell shambles he should stop posting. Why are the regular little band unable to stop themselves opening this thread? Why do they persist in this game? Do they need to have a person to persecute? It's becoming unsavoury. Including you, apparently. You seem to keep opening it, and commenting. I guess that means that you are a part of the regular little band, no? If you don't like it, don't open it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:30 PM ... the sport currently being encouraged - of shooting the messenger .... 1. I don't need a messenger on the issues being raised-- I can see the Forum for myself. 2. Messengers are usually dispatched FROM someone, and TO someone. Who sent you, Shambles? ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:32 PM Well, Shambles and my ex-wife and George Bush have a lot in common. You can't really carry on a debate with them because they have such a limited grasp of the laws of logic. Still, it's kind of fun to play the game - like fishing in an overstocked pond. If I had the chance, I'd love to needle Georgie. They'd probably arrest me, though. I'll stay away from my ex, thankyouverymuch. That one is dangerous. She just got married to a very nice guy. I wish him luck. Guess I'd better stick to jousting with Shambles. His huffy, self-righteous lack of logic can be quite entertaining. Sometimes, though, I have to admit that I'm tempted to stick pins in my Shambles doll.... -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 25 Mar 05 - 05:42 PM As I've explained many times before, we do not require Clones to obtain prior approval of an editorial action. That wouldn't make any sense at all. We want the Clones to act quickly if there is a serious problem post that needs to be dealt with immediately, and then report their action to us. Mostly, the immediate problems that fall under this limited permission are severe personal attacks, racism, and Spam - stuff that's really obvious. If they had to get approval first then it would make more sense to leave all editing to the Mudcat Troika - and Max, Jeff, and I simply don't have time to be here every minute of every day. Ted's deleted 200th post slipped by me because Mudcat was having technical problems at the time, and my edit review tools weren't working. That post should not have been deleted. Joe I have lost count of the times over the past few years that I have pointed out an editing action where you later excuse why it was not done the way you say that it is supposed to be done. Usually only after the victim has publicly complained about it………The example in this thread of - why it was not done the way you say that it is supposed to be done - is just the latest. Simply keeping on saying every time that these should not have been deleted – after they have - does not alter the indisputable fact that the 'spin' is not anywhere near the reality. It is not open, fair or have any clear object. Because these type of things keep on happening - all I have ever asked for is a review of why these mistakes are repeated and why they keep being excused -so they can stop? In the context of personal attacks etc – I can see no better examples than in the 'What is antisemitism thread' but these – the very things that all of this censorship is supposed to be about and which many support it for – are not even touched by you or your volunteers…. Why? But those thread title changes have nothing whatsoever to do with "abusive personal attacks." No they don't. So why can the originators of these request posts be first informed of any suggested changes? Why must these increasing changes be imposed by you and your anonymous volunteers - without the poster's knowledge? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:37 PM Another key point you miss, Roger, is that we are not required to refrain from posting our own opinions. The fact that I am a Mudelf does not preclude me from expressing my opinion about you. The fact that I tire of your incessant babbling is simply my opinion. And I am well aware that others whose opinions I care about and whom I like, such as Harpgirl, are not happy with my stance. But, quite frankly, I am tired of your shit. I am tired of saying, "Oh hell, that is just Roger". Were I able to use my so called powers in the way you think I can, I would have banned you, and deleted every posting you make from here forward. I recognize, however, the wisdom in giving you some threads (such as this one) to run your mouth in. Hence I always leave any decisions on your posts to Joe. I would like to state to the other volunteers (especially the anonymous ones) that anything I say here should not be taken as a personal criticism of you. I am sure that most of are responsible and well-intentioned and would not primarily see their role as sitting in judgement upon certain other posters, informing them of what they will allow or feel that it was acceptable to mount abusive personal attacks upon them and incite others to do this and feel that setting an example of a double-standard was a good one. I would think that any armed cop who was tempted to be 'trigger-happy would be at least partially inhibited by the stack of paper-work that has to filled-in everytime they discharge their weapon. Perhaps a similar process here - where every imposed editing action required a written report to be submitted to Max for his approval - may have the same effect and result in less imposed judgement and a more proportiate approach? These officers, judges and others in the type of postion that require them to be seen to be impartial - (if they take them seriously and one hopes they would not be employed for too long if they did not) - are very careful about expressing their personal opinions. Most take great care to keep these very clearly separate from their job. This is wise - For they know they could lay themselves open to accusations of prejudice and unfair treatment in the course of their duties - accusations that they may find very difficult to refute. In cases where those in these type of jobs or roles were to be seen to have abused their position - they would be dismissed or be expected to resign (or in some professions - maybe even promoted). Is it really not possible for any editing comments to be objective and factual and completely free of personal judgements and opinions made about other posters? This would also protect our volunteers from any accusations of unfair treatment and of abusing their responsible position of trust? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:59 PM There was talk of possible legal action and libel etc. Perhaps the legally-minded among us could advise? I am accused (amongst other things) of not being very good on this logic business - but do I follow correctly - the logic of the argument being proposed? That - as they are appointed by Max - whatever our volunteers say or do is approved by Max and they are in effect - acting and speaking for Max? Does it also follow that - if one of them calls another poster a name or worse - that this is also speaking and acting for Max and would be considered as official Mudcat Editorial Policy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bill D Date: 25 Mar 05 - 07:18 PM have we beaten this horse to death? are rhetorical and hypothetical questions getting wearysome? Does anyone care? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 25 Mar 05 - 07:36 PM Roger, I mean this sincerely and with no disrespect. I am even worried when I say to you that whatever is wrong with you is no small thing. Your questions have been answered hundreds of times by people empowered to do so and yet when confronted with the same explanation but put forth in a different way in the forlorn hope that you might somehow understand, you see them only as "spin." You have this deeply held set of beliefs that you refuse to challenge in the face of all evidence to their contrary. Discussion with you has become impossible as you aren't even willing to accept evidence as evidence unless it can be grossly misconstrued to fit with your hypothesis. I have a few questions for you that are simple and straightforward. If Max were to post and say, "It's fine the way it is Roger. Now drop it."..........Would you drop it? Would you accept things as they are if Max said they are fine as they are as far as he is concerned? OR....... Would you carry on this rhetoric even with the certain and factual knowledge that whatever you said would make no difference? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:54 PM
When you come up with new stuff, that's one thing. But your constant repetition is wearying. Aren't you aware of how often you repeat yourself? -Joe Offer- (937 is hyperbole used for rhetorical purposes - but Shambles wouldn't understand that.)(and Ted, this is the 391st post in this thread) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: michaelr Date: 26 Mar 05 - 12:34 AM Given Martin Gibson's recent sewage spewage, along with Shambles' rambles, I do find myself wishing Mudcat was a moderated forum like most -- where no one would waste time, energy and bandwidth on this bilge because it would never see the light of day... er, light of cathode ray tube. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:02 AM I have a few questions for you that are simple and straightforward. If Max were to post and say, "It's fine the way it is Roger. Now drop it."..........Would you drop it? Catspaw are rhetorical and hypothetical questions getting wearysome? Bill D But those thread title changes have nothing whatsoever to do with "abusive personal attacks." Joe Offer No they don't. So why can the originators of these request posts be first informed of any suggested changes? Why must these increasing changes be imposed by you and your anonymous volunteers - without the poster's knowledge? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Mar 05 - 04:20 AM You know, Roger, usually I do inform thread originators, to make sure they can find the thread - but I don't ask their permission to change a thread name. If I can't find them, then I can't inform them. Remember also that we try to clarify thread titles by adding to them, leaving the original title as part of the new title. Once upon a time, we'd get lots of song requests with generic titles, titles that couldn't be differentiated from other titles because they were all the same - "lyrics request," or "lyrics required," or "desparately seeking lyrics" (and they always spelled "desperately" incorrectly). Then we'd get all sorts of helpful Mudcatters posting to the thread, preaching that the people needed to start a new thread with a specific title. We'd also get people requesting many unrelated songs in the same thread, and those requests would get lost. A simple thread title change solves those problems. So, Jeff created a utility that allows us to change thread titles, and we use it. With almost 78,000 threads, it's important that thread titles describe the contents of the thread. It's simply a process of indexing Mudcat threads so that it will be easier for people to use them. The philosophy is that the needs of the general community are more important the the wishes of the thread originator - although we do try to take the thread originator's intentions into consideration. Now, I'm sure that there are people who look on a thread as their platform for free speech, their personal Hyde Park for presenting their ideas. That's a valid point way of doing things, but that's not how things have been here at Mudcat. Thread originators have never had control of threads, and threads have always been the result of a community effort. Yes, there have been some people who have complained about a thread title change here and there, but the number of individuals who have complained has been very small. In fact, I imagine that 98.3 percent of the complaints have all come from the same individual, and I think we all know who that individual is. -Joe Offer- 394 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Mar 05 - 05:10 AM I think Bill tires of your questions as well as mine. I tire of them too. But every factual question I can think of that you have asked over the past several years has been answered 97 ways from sideways in an effort to make it clear to you. You refuse to accept ANY answer that does not match your personal vision. It matters not where it comes from at all. Any answer that does not fit is twisted into something sinister by you and then becomes yet another complaint. I simply want to know if there is any point that you will say, "Well, that's it. I made my case and stuck to my guns but now it's over." I would think that a definitive answer from Max would be that point. Here's a song with some verses that are germane to the situation (italics are mine): ************************************************************* Move On Down the Line I got to move on, down the line What's yours is yours, what's mine is mine There's nothing left, but the lying Move on down the line This train we're riding, has reached the end And it's no good to pretend We were walking, hand in hand Into some Promised Land So long, I won't forget you But, I never was 'gonna' let you Tie me up and settle me down Nothing's lost, nothing's found The story ends, it's had it's time And if you look, I'll think you'll find The bottle's empty, we drunk it dry There's no need to cry This dog is happy, it's had it's day There's really nothing more to say No need to cut up, don't howl the moon We don't sing the same tune No need to tell me, I'm no good I just thought, you understood Just like the wind, needs to blow I've 'gotta' go ************************************************************* Interesting song.........Unlike the guy in the song, I see no need for you to go, but when do YOU reach the point of saying that we just don't sing the same tune? Anything I have to say you won't accept. That is true of Joe and virtually everyone else as well. This leaves only Max as best as I can tell........That being the case, I don't find it rhetorical at all to ask you if an answer from him would end it for you or not. So on that basis, I ask again: Would you accept things as they are if Max said they are fine as they are as far as he is concerned? OR....... Would you carry on this rhetoric even with the certain and factual knowledge that whatever you said would make no difference? Spaw Oh yeah.....I forgot to attribute the lyrics above to the writer. Seems it was written by some guy named Roger Gall........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: harpgirl Date: 26 Mar 05 - 05:48 AM Congratulations Roger! Your persistence has elicited many explanations for the reasons for clonehead activities on mudcat. I see Joe has explained his reason for thread title changes. Interesting! (He may have said it before but this is the first time I've groked it.) If it weren't for your "97 different ways of asking" we might still be kept in the dark about many things with regard to "censorship" on mudcat. Why do the verbal abusers on this thread not see that Roger's persistence has clarified many issues? Does anyone see also that the continuing dialogue helps to put the issue out in the open, debate it, keep the cloneheads thinking about why they do things, and is thus dialectical? Oh, no. The boneheads, oops I mean cloneheads just keep telling you to shut up! The irony of this thread is astounding and magical! Go Roger! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 26 Mar 05 - 06:17 AM Harpgirl. If you were unsure on why thread titles were changed, one straight simple question "Could someone please explain why thread titles are changed?" would have got you a straight answer. Shambles is not asking straight questions but is making accusations and forcing people to defend themselves repeatedly. If you want to encourage shambles' fantasy world where Max's dream is being wrecked by Joe and his evil empire, fair enough but don't pretend he's bringing out answers you couldn't have got by much simpler means. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:22 AM Well said, Jon. It is a matter of asking. It is also a matter of accepting the answer. This place is what it is. Accept that and move on with enjoying it. Harpie, if I thought there was some good coming from this, I would say so. You seem to be endorsing this man's assertion that there is something sinister going on here. There is not, and it seems to me that is what you should be endorsing. JMO. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: jaze Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:06 AM Well, gee, now I've just found out some of you were invited by Max. Now I really feel left out! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: jaze Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:18 AM 400! Never did that before. |