 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Scaramouche Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:48 AM " 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? " Yeah and part of that responsibility, Shambles, is to deal with things like porn postings, spam and public postings of email addresses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Jeri Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:54 AM If anybody thinks they're having an honest9discussion9about Mudcat editing policies, <you're<in the wrong thread.<.This9one is for9playing head games designed by Shambles. It's a whole lot9less frustrating when you<realize you're<not making any progress9in9the9surface9level of communication9because that's just for show. Shambles'9intentions seem9to9be9to9see 9how many<hoops he can get others<to jump through while avoiding jumping through any himself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 26 Mar 05 - 10:40 AM I thought we were overdue for a Jeri contribution - to refesh the thread. If this is is a game - it is one that you and many others are willing to play. But this is a relevant subject for discussion - why is it that so many post to say that they do not think it should be? I suspect if we were all saying the same things on censorship here - it would be thought to be a suitable subject for 'debate'. 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. Now if this had NOT been the case here on the part of Max's accommodating forum – I, and I suspect many other long-term contributors would not have been attracted and contributed here for so long. There were and are many places where pedantic judgements and tedious arguments about what was and was not 'on topic' and where control seemed to be the main object - The Mudcat Forum was never as ordinary as this and should never be allowed to be turned into one. Those that prefer this sort of place – should perhaps go there and leave the rest of us in peace? This re-writing of history - where some animals are now more equal than others and feel qualified to sit in judgement and impose this judgement upon others - without their knowledge or permission - demonstrates exactly why I feel that credit for the forum that we have ALL created - is in danger of being stolen from us all - by a few. Thread originators and posters generally have always been respected and should continue to be shown a respect that is not now the case. I agree that threads have always been the result of a community effort - they have been the result of contributions invited by Max. They have NEVER been and NEVER should be the result of deletions, closures, tinkering and general personal judgements of the the poster's worth - made by a selected and anonymous) few. 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. I will leave others to judge from the evidence whether something sinister is going on. I have not said that there is. But if there is NOT anything sinister going on - an open approach - (with no secrets, threats and anonymous volunteers and the very minimum of imposed censorship) - a lack of sinister intentions will always be very clear. It looks as if you have something to hide and protect if you choose to do this by adopting divisive and less than positive methods to prevent open debate. Folk may then tend to believe that there is something sinister going on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 26 Mar 05 - 01:24 PM Max's stated view is that his role on the forum is only to facilitate. The role of anyone who is asked to assist in this – must surely be to also facilitate and enable the public's contributions – and not to sit in judgement upon the worth of them? It makes little sense to judge and sort posters invited to a public forum - into what a volunteer may consider to be good or bad ones - for every contribution posted from the public – invited by Max to the public -is equally valid. But it is clear that this counter-productive practice IS at least what some of our volunteers presume their privileged role to require of them. The result of all this being posted publicly – is that all contributors follow this example. Posters in turn would appear to think that the whole purpose of posting to the forum now - is to sit in judgement of the worth of their fellow posters and to post abusive personal attacks and respond in kind to others (rather than simply ignoring them). Is it likely to ever prevent abusive personal attacks – when those in responsible positions – set the example of the double-standard? Of judging the worth of their fellow posters whilst themselves indulging in abusive personal attacks and inciting others to also indulge in this and respond in kind to these abusive personal attacks? A practice that is well demonstrated (and defended) in this thread. All that retrospective imposed editing action can effect - is what is removed or closed. It has no effect on preventing abusive personal attacks from first being posted. So if there is a genuine wish to prevent what most posters say they object to - some other and more imaginative methods MUST be found. The most obvious and simple - but still seemingly impossible for some of our volunteers to manage - is to first set an example - to what they consider - to be lesser posters. One of: NOT insisting on posting only to judge the worth of their fellow posters (good or bad). NOT insisting on mounting abusive personal attacks – inciting other posters to do this or ever responding in kind or at all – to any obvious provocation. I and many other second-class 'lesser' posters – do not have the problems that some of our privileged volunteers have and can manage perfectly well to post and not respond in kind to obvious provocation. If they are to remain a permanent feature - is it really too much to expect our volunteers to set the example of also doing this. If it is – are these really the right people to sit in judgement upon the worth of the rest of us? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 26 Mar 05 - 01:28 PM Roger, in 1999 you pitched a fit and in an attempt to garner attention, you publicly announced you were leaving. Were your motives pure, you would have stayed gone. At one point, I even invited you back. I regret that now. Your motives are not pure, you are an attention grabbing troll, nothing more. Further, I believe you need help. ANYONE who cannot see that is blind, and anyone who encourages it when they know better, ought be ashamed. If they are not, I am of the opinion that they have an agenda just as you do. I am through dancing your dance. Keep playing in the sandbox, and I hope the rest of you don't mind it when you step in the occasional catshit. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Mar 05 - 02:02 PM Shambles, a message is (or can be) a personal Hyde Park for anybody who wants to express an opinion. But just like in Hyde Park, you control only your own message - you don't control the entire park. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Mar 05 - 02:39 PM While we're on the subject, can anyone define the term "folk music" for me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:41 PM As Shambles likes quoting, I've done a bit of research and will supply an extract from one quote and another full quote. Subject: I'm against censorship Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread) Now the first and most obvious point is that Shambles has been banging on about this for rather a long time. The second point is rather less obvious. The "no rules" post was made in Oct 99, yet in July 99 it is quite clear that there were unknown volunteers and some editing work was carried out, even personal had been deleted. I don't think Max's statement was ever meant to be taken the way shambes does. I think his meaning was intended to be taken as "we try to be as free and easy as humanly possible" rather that the literal "do anything you like regardless..." interpretation shambles puts on it. Whatever, the evidence supporting the state of the forum pre Max's statment does seem to me to invalidate Shambles usage of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Jeri Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:43 PM Little Hawk, I would, but I'd refresh the thread and it might bother Shambles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Mar 05 - 05:30 PM Gee, Jon, things were different back then, though... Did I really say I had deleted two personal attacks in two years? Now I'm lucky if I can get by deleting just two attacks in two days. Back in 1999, nobody ever called anybody a "cunt." We didn't have to deal with those things back then. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 26 Mar 05 - 06:43 PM Yep Joe, I can see some things have changed. My point really was that the power existed and action would be taken if needed back then. Just in case I was missunderstood, I didn't mean to imply that you haven't been forced to move with the times... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Jeri Date: 26 Mar 05 - 07:02 PM Max himself shut down a couple of threads, if I recall correctly. In The Olden Times, I believe that was done with a bit of code that disappeared the 'Reply to Thread' window and the 'This Thread is Closed' thing was developed and implemented later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Mar 05 - 07:06 PM Well, I had to look at your messsage twice, Jon, but I did understand you correctly. Still, it was a shock to remember that oncve upon a time, I had to delete only two personal attacks in two years. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:08 PM Ya' know Joe, I keep thinking I'd like to invite RacePace, ZapIt, CornerMarshall, and a few others who are mods at a racing forum where I hang out, to join me here for a field trip. We'd have to have El Swanno standing by because there would likely be a stroke or heart attack or two. At the very least a lot of hyperventilation. Give them a few minutes and any number of posters would be zapped into the ether. Boatloads of individual posts would be gone and threads would disappear right and left including this one. They'd be camped out on these pages and any time someone even looked like they might be attacking.....ZAP. No explanations will be given and only rarely will they bother with one. Shambles would be completely beside himself, but no one would know! Truthfully, if you handle it right, you can discuss their decisions privately and they will in fact change their minds......but you need to know that attacking them or demanding anything of that sort from the mods there will simply be zapped. Truth is that it's a real friendly place with lots of fun and intelligent people who understand that you post on these things as a privilege, not a right. The rules are clear regarding attacks, profanity, porn, and the like.......and the place runs very smoothly. I have not seen any instance where they have killed off discussions or conversations that were being held within the rather simple rules. I don't see where either good discussions or the community atmosphere is affected for the worse at all. Seriously it's a whole lot better than the place where the 'Cat seems to be devolving. Now this bunch around here may think all that harsh, but for those who do frequent other boards they know that you allow far more, and I mean faaarrr more than is the general rule. Might be time to get a bit more aggressive though................Just a thought. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:43 PM Anyone ever consider that these folks, like Sham and martin gibson, are trying to force more moderation? Just a thought. Beyond being psycho's it's the only thing that makes sense to me. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,the shrink Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:47 PM In the case of Martin, that is exactly what I have presented as the purpose of his manner. I believe to someone as himself who lacks power in real life, to be moderated on an internet forum IS power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:57 PM yep, shrink, I think that is it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:24 PM LOL Mick.........Hell Bro, could be anything! I think in Shambles case he has been at this for so long that he really is off the deep end mentally. Reminds me a bit of Lenny Bruce at the end of his life where he was so occupied with his court cases he could think of nothing else. His entire act was him reading court transcripts. Or maybe Roger has been wearing the wrong size underwear all these years. The other guy isn't worth the time of day. He's a decent enough troll but he follows the same pattern ad infinitum: He makes a thinly veiled attack on someone and they respond. He then responds with far worse stuff, saying he was attacked. If you do the same thing to him, he of course claims your thinly veiled first strike was a major attack on him. His first strikes are never major attacks on you. I tried him both ways after watching him for awhile and it's pretty much the pattern. Also, should someone fail to respond after keeping this up for awhile, he does an Anon Guest posting to keep it going. Pretty basic stuff but it keeps working because for some reason it seems a lot of 'Catters either can't shut up or actually care what this disembodied voice has to say. If everyone would just let it drop.......but that isn't likely and he knows that as well. It would be easy enough to just zap him out on every questionable post. Most trolls weary of that after awhile too. Roger on the other hand.........LOL, well there is a beautiful room awaiting him at the NYCFTTS anytime he wants! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:30 PM I'm glad to hear the NYCFTTS facilities are still open. I'd been wondering about that. I've got 15 people here hanging around the WSSBA who swear that they ARE William Shatner, and frankly, I'm getting tired of it. Most of them don't even look like him. Talk about yer terminally screwed people... There are also several Canadian politicians who could benefit from a short stay. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:34 PM Yep, you're right Spaw. I am just getting to the point where the moderation you speak of sounds better and better. I would just hate to lose the freshness that spawned NYCFTTS, Reg and the boys, LFPS,Koko, the spud, ..... all of that. I guess if is far past too late though. I hear you, maybe I will adopt a bit of that philo. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:52 PM The problem here Mick is that so many of do care so much for this place and also know from history that getting 100% compliance to shunning is about impossible here. So we long for the "benevolent dictator" to right the problem. What is important to understand, at least to me, is that on the net fairness is not a requirememnt. On the other board I am speaking of, Spaw is still pretty much Spaw. I have a rep their as well and I get by with a lot that others don't....and that's simply because the mods know there is nothing mean-spirited about my posts. I still get zapped occasionally and have to explain a joke to RacePace now and then. The persona put forward by MG wouldn't last a day. WE've had some and they kept coming back but the mods were equally relentless and the trolls lose everytime. I could sometimes say the same things and not even be noticed. It isn't fair of course, but it is the reality and it works. Spaw S |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:52 PM Well, here's a thought. The forum has already been divided into an upper music section and a lower BS section. Why not subdivide it one level further, as follows: 1. Music - (the Etherial Realm of True Purity) 2. BS section - (for stuff that's somewhat less pure) 3. Truly Offensive BS section - (for stuff that's completely beyond the pale!) Any post in which a person said something completely beyond the pale (whatever that is deemed to be) would be summarily dumped into the TOBS section as its own TOBS thread, with its own TOBS title, which would be the title of the thread it dared to first appear in with "TOBS-" added at the front. Example: TOBS - What is the definition of Folk Music? The TOBS section would necessarily be so far down the page that it would require considerable motivation just to scroll down there. This would be discouraging to the wretched souls who devise truly offensive posts, as they would more and more begin to feel that they had been consigned to some sort of purgatorial realm of terminal damnation. If a particular poster caused more than 666 posts a year that were truly offensive, then a subroutine could simply dump all his future posts in the TOBS section from then on. This would amount to excommunication in Mudcat terms. I'm guessing that "Guest" would be there in jig time, probably talking to himself most of the time. Kind of like a man yelling at his own echo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:56 PM ROTFLMAO.......Gawd Hawk.....I love it!!! In other words, Max needs to provide a place for every wacko, nabob, bottom dwelling slug on the net so they can have their big chance to have a forum of their own! The idea cracks me up but I think you have a pretty hard sell there(:<)) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:57 PM What you are describing, Spaw (that you get away with more than some do on that forum) is the reality in any group of people who have gotten to know each other over a period of time. Old friends get more benefit of the doubt than strangers do. Makes perfect sense to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Mar 05 - 10:58 PM No, put TOBS on the server that only runs some of the time-- the one for which there is not even a back door entry. Give it a separate URL altogether, and no link from here to there. You'd have to Google to find it. The color scheme also-- have to be totally offensive to the eye, like blinking black backgrounds, small yellow type for thread names and posts, etc. Require registration to post there, but make every post appear as being from a nameless Guest. Or just assign random numbers-- "Banished #00002," etc. Or use the IP number. :~) No PM function. Eliminate the blickifier there, and all other Mudcat conveniences too. Limit the characters per post, too, to something short and pithy. Install programming that would make a hash out of anything composed in a WP and then pasted as small bits. But no censoring, of any sort whatsoever. The fix Mudcat Normal Zone so that links to the Hell site cannot be made or posted. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Mar 05 - 11:00 PM PS, Hell is where to put the POP-UPs, and banner ads, and all that CRAP! People wanna post that shit, let them pay good money (via revenues generated) and fund the rest of Mud-damn-Cat! :~) It's always simple to harness an addiction. Make it pay! ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Mar 05 - 11:07 PM Oh! Nasty! Imagine the misery in which the banished of Mudcat would wallow there in the TOBS section, like prisoners in some foul dungeon, longing for a scrap of bread or a beam of sunlight... No point limiting the characters per post, though. Let 'em go on and on indefinitely, I say. Excessively long posts by obsessive people would be part of the misery. Allow NO paragraph breaks! Have jOhn from Hull design a subroutine to revamp ALL the spelling so that it looks like his. Another thing that could be done for the regular BS section would be an automatic subroutine that alters all deeply offensive words into harmless words such as "tiddly", "ronson", and "macaroon". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Ebbie Date: 26 Mar 05 - 11:37 PM I regret my own recent actions- mind you, I don't regret the things I said to the person to whom I said them- but I regret not leaving the problem to Mudcat, especially to Joe Offer. You da guys that have to deal with da problem- and I am capable of leaving it in your hands. I'll try to do so from now on. Ebbiewhoispenitent |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:40 AM Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread) From: Joe Offer Date: 20 Jul 99 - 02:22 PM Drop it, Shambles. Apparently, some sort of misdirected censorship did happen once, and the perpetrator was aparently a JoeClone® in training. It happened one time, and probably won't happen again. OK? -Joe Offer- But it did happen again. So I didn't drop it. For it happened again and again it still does as it did – even in this thread. So do the same excuses given and so do the personal attacks that the whole editing edifice is supposed to be protecting us all from and which many good folk support because they believe the 'spin'. The reality – as I have demonstrated – is somewhat different – the people mainly affected by current censorship – are ordinary posters. My circumstances have never been the issue for me but my postings are what I know most about. The 'spin' will tell you that I have never been the victim of any censorship here (by rather narrowly defining this as by terms such as 'tidying-up'). I do speak from the rather unique position of a thread originator – whose thread has been closed by Joe Offer TWICE……..Unfair treatment and over-zealous abuse of this position – I will leave it for you to decide http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=12450&messages=78 The explanation for this was not because the thread contained personal attacks on me or anyone – as it was folk saying nice things. But this was considered serious enough to cause this thread to be closed twice! Can closed threads be re-opened |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:32 AM Shambles. One portion of my post you did not quote was Joe Offer saying. "Max gave a few of us "edit" buttons and told us to use them with good judgment." Does that not tell you anything? Let's see if we can try a couple of questions based on Joe's statement. I'll give you a clue. The answers only need one 3 letter word. 1. Who created the situation where some members have more power than others that you complain about so often (something I have no objection to, on the contary I think a few people are needed to help out)? 2. If rather than using good judgment, they are abusing their privelage, who do you think you should inform? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 27 Mar 05 - 06:06 AM The answer has two letters not three. Us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:04 AM Shambles, a message is (or can be) a personal Hyde Park for anybody who wants to express an opinion. But just like in Hyde Park, you control only your own message - you don't control the entire park. -Joe Offer- Perhaps it may slowly dawn on those that do wish it - that no one else IS wanting to take control of the whole park. It would appear that whoever it is that wishes to control every aspect of the whole park and entry to it - and is under the impression that they now do control it – is not even content with this and now does not wish posters to even control their own messages. http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=78706 You will see that the thread title that I had chosen for my music related (parody) thread was changed without my knowledge and against my wishes. That I was then given the ultimatum of leaving the thread with the imposed title change or of having it changed back and this obvious attempt at a thread song – being sent to the BS (non –music) section. This was contained in a (brown) editing comment – where the personal opinion was expressed by Joe Offer - that all Song Challenge threads should be demoted to the BS non-music section……. I will leave you judge what is happening here and where it is written that as a matter of routine that volunteers can threaten to send threads that are clearly music related – to the non-music section and why? The view that Song Challenges (containing mainly original material) may not be worthy of a place on the music related section is perhaps a valid opinion. It is perhaps not the sort of opinion to express in an editing comment - if the volunteer expects their imposed editing judgement to ever be generally accepted as being objective. Such actions leave little room for defence - if or when accused of unfair treatment or of abusing their position. Perhaps in future (and if these editing comments continue to take place) - and in order to prevent confusion - no personal opinions should appear in editing comments and these should be kept objective and factual? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:32 AM Thanks for making me laugh out loud. The problem here Mick is that so many of do care so much for this place and also know from history that getting 100% compliance to shunning is about impossible here. The only things that we know for sure are impossible - are the things we make no attempt at. If we are talking about not responding in kind or at all to obvious provocation - whatever percentage level that could be achieved (by posters always setting this example) would always be better that doing nothing and stating that making any attempt is futile. It would also help and pay a big compliment to the many posters who do manage to easily do what you appear to find impossible. Unless of course for some reason you do not really wish to even make the attempt - but wish to continue to indulge in mounting personal attacks and respond in kind to them and to set this example? So we long for the "benevolent dictator" to right the problem. If we do - we will be waiting a long time. But of course - stating this cop-out always saves the resonsibility of actually doing anything positive yourself. What is important to understand, at least to me, is that on the net fairness is not a requirememnt. is this not a double-standard - as you would appear to think that being fair to our volunteers - is a requirement? This of course works both ways. As in any form of respectable policing anywhere - being open, fair and having a clear objective is always a requirment - except perhaps in police state...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:34 AM At this point, Pip would say "anobeithiol" Welsh adj: despairing, hopeless, desperate, forlorn |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:43 AM Yep, Jon. There is no help available to the fool who will not be helped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 27 Mar 05 - 08:23 AM Again I would ask, Shambles-- when you use the word "we"-- who is the "we" who sends you as messenger? And who is "we" on any given day and hour? ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Mar 05 - 10:51 AM Yeah, iut appears that Easter has really rejuvenated the boy doesn't it? But Pip has it right and if I knew how to pronounce that word, I'd be using it all the time! I'd be happy to parse your postings all to hell and break down each thing, like your incorrect usage of the word volunteer or the fact that if you cannot see that your 2 letter answer is wrong and Jon's 3 letter answer is right, or a hundred other things........but there is no point. You need to address all your problems to Max. Everyone here has answered you repeatedly and you say they are wrong or it is spin because it doesn't fit your vision. Time to question your vision Dude! And the only ones who can help you there are yourself and Max. 'Course questioning your own vision is hard and requires perspective and honesty......not everyone seems able to do it. Like this one guy I know who has a vision that is seriously impaired by the fact that his head is so far up his ass, his tonsils are tickling his forehead. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:03 AM When I use the word 'we' - I always mean every single last one of 'us' contributors to our forum - including the 'great and all-powerful' Max.... Susan - who knows? I make no claims but the same one who sends you to 'us' may even send me and everyone else with the very same message. That we can stop judging each other's worth here and everywhere else - for they are the one who will do the judging - when the time comes. They are also said to work in mysterious ways. To quote the great Dave Allen: 'May your God go with you'. LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:06 AM Dealing with flamers and trolls |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Jeri Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:02 PM Spaw you might like this cartoon. So might anyone else who doesn't mind some effing language and/or whose naughty-word protection software at work won't have cow about it. As far as parsing postings, I do believe the<just plain wrong stuff is the bait. Stuff that is THAT<messed up, people feel compelled to put right. Whether it's intentional or he does it because he's not that good at communicating is hard to determine. He<completely<missed the point of WYS's question. Was it on purpose or not? Shambs, the "shoot the messenger" saying has to do with messengers who deliver someone else's<words. One wonders not only whose message you're delivering, but who you're delivering it to. Maybe more important than "who is 'we'?" is "who is NOT 'we'?" I mean it adds another 'not' into the equation, and you seem to like negative words, what with sentences that read like "Should we not be encourged to not ever shoot the messager? No? Nonaynevernomore?" I mean, it would now be "Should not those of us who are NOT us be enouraged to not to shoot the rest of us, who are?" I mean, who really IS 'we'? Am I not we, as you are, are you not, we, and are we not all 'we' together? And if it's true that it's 'us' asking the questions, and 'us' providing the answers, are we not talking to ourselves? I am the Walrus, and I have approved this message. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:07 PM Spaw, Pip doesn't speak Welsh but she picked this word up from one of her Welsh speaking friends and likes it. Try: ANNA-BAY-TH-E-OL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:41 PM Thanks Jon!! A hug to the dear Pip from me!!! Jeri........I have long felt there is a language called Shambalese. I first became aware of it back in '99 when I failed to understand what Roger was talking about. Being of a lesser intelligence myself, I enquired of him what it was he was trying to say because as I read it, it made no sense and I had some issues with him. I sent him a PM to get that clarification and received back THREE PM's, all of them 3 or more pages in length. After several hours of sifting through them repeatedly and trying to ascertain if they were in fact English or some other language, I gave up and went back to trying to get the little BB's in the eyes of the bear. Today, you, Jeri, have given me hope! You seem to have been able to translate the Shambalese into English and even better, you seem to speak it fluently YOURSELF! How much work, study, and sheer perseverance this must have taken on your part I cannot imagine. When I read, "Should not those of us who are NOT us be enouraged to not to shoot the rest of us, who are?" I mean, who really IS 'we'? Am I not we, as you are, are you not, we, and are we not all 'we' together?", I knew you were the first person to successfully translate and use Shambalese as well as it's originator. Do you have a book and CD available? Do you take MasterCard? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 27 Mar 05 - 01:10 PM There was a time when dislexia, spelling, grammar and other problems that posters may suffer with - were treated with respect on our forum and not made the subject of ridicule. A time when what someone was trying to say was respected and considered more important that the form that it appeared in. Also there was a time when personal conversations - of little or no general interest - were thought to be best undertaken via PMs. If these personal conversations were about another poster - it was once thought better and polite - not to conduct it publicly. There was a time when what passed between members via PM were not thought to be for public knowledge. If someone wishes to say something to me that perhaps may be of little general interest - I would be more than willing to do this via PMs and to respect the convention of privacy that is customary in this method of communication. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Mar 05 - 01:37 PM ...........anobeithiol...........oy...........simply amazing.......okay...lessee here...... ROGER SAYS:There was a time when dislexia, spelling, grammar and other problems that posters may suffer with - were treated with respect on our forum and not made the subject of ridicule. A time when what someone was trying to say was respected and considered more important that the form that it appeared in. Are you telling me you suffer from some problem like dyslexia or bad spelling? Roger your lyrics and poetry are simply too well done and beautiful to believe that. No, this is in fact the point of all of this----NO ONE CAN MAKE OUT WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY MOST OF THE TIME BECAUSE YOU CONVOLUTE WORDS TO FIT SOME OTHER PERSONAL VISION OR IDEA. YOU DO NOT RESPOND TO WHAT IS SAID BUT RESPOND INSTEAD TO SOME OTHER INTERPRETATION THAT ONLY YOU CAN SEE. The fact that you are so articulate in your poetry makes many of us wonder why and how you can be so obtuse otherwise. It makes no sense and frankly makes me concerned for your mental health. You have been on this mission of yours for over 6 years now and refuse to see the reality of the situation. Your mind seems to be so consumed with this that you cannot read the "what is" but rather choose to read your own interpretation and you "communicate" it back in such a way that it is almost impossible to understand. Forget it.....I'll just go back to the BB's and the bear........ Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 27 Mar 05 - 01:53 PM Are you telling me you suffer from some problem like dyslexia or bad spelling? If it matters - and I really have spell it out to you publicly - YES. Whatever I achieve or fail to achieve at in writing prose, poetry or song - comes only after considerable trouble and great assistance from a spell-checker. I am sure that many others also struggle in this fashion and perhaps should be encouraged to express themselves as best they can - rather than feel that they have to conform to your standards? I do not - fortunately suffer from any diagnosed mental health condition. It may be as well for you to to consider that there may well be posters who do.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: katlaughing Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:07 PM Fer keyriced's sakes, Shambs, I canNOT believe we were born on the exact same day and year. How about, as a b-day present to ourselves, you turn over a new leaf and give it a rest?!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Once Famous Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:11 PM Wrong Big Mick and idiot Guest. I don't care about power. Except if there's 110v coming out of the socket. I think it's the other way around. Big Mick and his ILK (love that word and how it's always used here) are the one's worried about power because the old guard who is usually pretty unfriendly with bad attitude toward outsiders and ones who don't subscribe to their "Hi, I'm a liberal, phony folkie" philosophy is kind of showing some bad cracks and has plenty others thinking. Keep at it Shambles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Ed Skenieuwezscheivevitz Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:42 PM Hi. I am a very liberal and committed folkie, a man of the people, and I take serious umbrage at the rude and disgusting comments emanating from Martin Gibson. He is a far right fanatical cyber-thug and should be subjected to incarceration and deep psychoanalysis ASAP. I suspect that Martin Gibson is a plant by the CIA or worse yet is an agent for the Skull & Bones and the New World Order, his mission to spread chaos and disorder in liberal ranks and usher in a new era of totalitarian control by the war-mongering illuminati and the Bushites who are delivering our public school systems over to fascism and destroying the Constitution. Just a short time ago I was in Chicago, reputedly Martin's hometown, and happened to meet a certain individual in a bar and get into a lengthy conversation. This individual was a chimpanzee, dressed in a suit. He was reasonably articulate, and seemed to be interested in what I had to say about music, society, politics, and other germaine subjects of that sort. Little did I realize he was a psychotic agent of the New World Order. After listening to me innocently enough for at least an hour, he suddenly went berserk, whipped out a pistol, and threatened to blow me away on the spot. I fled the bar. You cannot reason with people who have lost the ability to engage in reasonable dialogue. Now, here's the rub. I strongly suspect that the chimpanzee in question was the very same person who passes himself off here AS Martin Gibson. That's right. Either that, or he and Martin are working together. Consider the evidence in common. Martin is from Chicago. I met the chimp in Chicago. Martin swears. So did the chimp. Martin is combative and short-tempered. So was the chimp. I intend to ferret out the truth about this matter if it takes me the next 5 years, and I am willing to sift through every one of Martin's posts painstakingly and record them all in an extensive database program in order to prove once and for all that Martin Gibson is a right-wing agent bent on destroying liberalism in American. And he's probably a chimp too. As for Shambles, well, I have read and reread the postings by you on this thread, sir, and I must admit that they are quite impressive, but the point is so subtle that it is still somehow eluding me. This is unusual. I have a mathematically exact mind that can normally graps any degree of arcane complexity, due to a 40-year career in folk music, and yet I cannot fully grasp what you are on about. You are either a genius or a complete idiot. My plan at this point is to recover and read ALL your postings from the past five years, and run them through my database analyzer. When I have reached a definitive conclusion as to their exact meaning, I will get right back to you. Meanwhile, do carry on. You are clearly a man with a mission. Amd don't forget to buy my new album: "Day of the Dolphins" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:03 PM Glad you overcome the problems Shambles. And I am well aware of quite a few who have similar problems......and I make no fun of them....nor do I make fun of you. I'm well aware also that a number of us have some mental health problems actually diagnosed. None of this has anything to do with it. I am just trying to understand what the problem is with your failure to acknowledge what is being said. I think perhaps the answer is quite simple....You refuse to do so. So I guess rather than treat you as a member here who is stating an opinion, your long diatribes in the face of all factual info given you seems instead that you are just yet another troll. Is that it? You're a weird kind of troll perhaps. So let's see............ You pose the same questions over and over and refuse to accept any answer given to you that does not conform to your vision. You refuse to answer questions in a straightforward manner butinstead twist the verbage to suit your needs. You don't acknowledge that Max is the final arbiter here and refuse to take your problems to him (in PM form if you like it so well). You even seemingly refuse to accept an answer from Max if he gives you one (and that's a mental health issue). Under all of these conditions, why not just close this thread? Or maybe as you would obviously prefer, we all agree to give it a break? I mean really, what the hell else can be said at this point? Is there anything you haven't stated and asked repeatedly? All of those things that I can see have been answered, but without answers you accept.....so there's no point in asking again now is there? Anything new? If not, let this die. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:25 PM Still droning on I see Roger! I think it was Jerome K Jerome who said, "His huff arrived, and he went off in it" Remind you guys of anyone? Giok |