BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 02:15 PM

Fanfuckingtastic, Miccadarlin'!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 02:39 PM

May I add a Musical(ish) if parodic note?

Not in MY thread - no.

And leave my left behind alone too.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 02:59 PM

Roger, this raises a new and mystical question: what is the sound of one behind clapping?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:09 PM

I nominate this thread to be the most boring "insider" thread currently out there.

What a yawn.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:16 PM

Roger, this raises a new and mystical question: what is the sound of one behind clapping?
A FA - Or possibly an AT?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:19 PM

Well, you certainly spiced things up there, dintcha, Not-Martin?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:19 PM

Sorry made a bit of a fart of that one.

Roger, this raises a new and mystical question: what is the sound of one behind clapping?

A FA - Or possibly an RT?

It's the way I tell 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:37 PM

"May I add a Musical(ish) if parodic note?"

"Not in MY thread - no."

I don't suppose you'd like Micca's post deleted, then?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: harpgirl
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:43 PM

...so this doesn't qualify as a thread attacking another mudcatter? Why, because Shambles views are unpopular or what?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:53 PM

No -- because, at a guess, he is enjoying it or at least riding the wave with a bit of humor.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 04:05 PM

And to delete this thread because it in some sense attacks Shambles would be doing just what he has stated on numerous occasions he is opposed to. And I imagine he would be bloody furious if it happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Is the Mudcat over-policed
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 04:09 PM

On the other hand, changing the thread title to the one I put on this post would be a good idea, I think anyway. (And I see that Shambles is evidently for that as well.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: harpgirl
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:24 PM

Wait a minute, Amos. How is Shambles going to ask for a deletion without being a hypocrite. My guess is he has no choice but to go along. Personally, I think the whole thread stinks. It should be deleted but hey, let's punish Shambles because he dared to speak against the tide. Who is being hypocritical here?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:40 PM

No -- because, at a guess, he is enjoying it or at least riding the wave with a bit of humor.

Amos - Enjoy is hardly the word for the truth is out there somewhere - but even if that were the case - the point is a good one and probably deserves a better answer that the one you provided. It is really these double standards that provide all the ammunition for the so-called trouble-making guest to exploit.

No one - including me has to open the thread so there is really never any need to delete this or any BS thread.

Kevin if I get told off for duplicate posting - will you take the 'rap'? I have posted the 5 questions here as you suggested for I see that you have alredy provided the link here from Barry Finn's thread.
...................................

The point I would make here is that there is only one punishment for any crime. And that this punishment is used increasingly and not just by Joe. Is it really proportionate that personal attack using foul language from an anonymous poster will receive exactly the same summary justice as a duplicate or an incoherent posting?

There seems to be many more than these two examples of what is not allowed and that will receive this one punishment and these would appear to be increasing. However, the questions that are not at all unreasonable to ask - must be:

1 Should the punishment fit the crime and does it currently?

2 Are all the volunteers authorised to administer summary justice and censor other's postings – without the poster's knowledge or permission – based only on their value judgement?

3 Is there to be no difference to be seen between an abusive post and say an incoherent one?

4 Is a sensible and responsible example being to set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?

5 Is it really too much to ask that those that would volunteer to judge (and punish) us – can be expected to always set the standards and be judged themselves by these standards?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 10:22 PM

1. There is no crime, and there is no punishment.
2. The editorial management they do is not a justice action. It is not censorship in the usual sense of the word. IF it is, it is the mildest possible form of censorship.
3. This question makes no sense. Of course there is a difference.
4. No. But then, I haven't seen this happen. I'd like some specifics and some context.
5. Already answered earlier -- no it is not too much to ask.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:55 AM

Amos I don't know why I am bothering to provide these examples as you have either ignored or excused them before and you probably will again - but here goes.

4 Is a sensible and responsible example being to set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?

4. No. But then, I haven't seen this happen. I'd like some specifics and some context.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest
Postings
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 01:32 PM

Actually, I didn't make any accusations. I just asked Cat if she was one of the people making anonymous posts, and if she was, could she please stop. Could all of you Brits please stop this nastiness, and be nice to each other? Mudcat is supposed to be a folk music forum, not UK Folkie Gossip Central. I've seen this backstabbing here at Mudcat from all sorts of UK people, and I saw it in person when I was in the UK last year. I met a lot of UK Mudcatters when I was in England last year, and this year at the Getaway, and I like almost every British Mudcatter I've met. You're wonderful people - why don't you like each other?

Don't you people have anything better to do with your time?

We don't go on witch hunts. We have no axe to grind. We don't allow personal attacks, so we delete them when we see them or when we get complaints about them. We would much rather spend our time on something other than settling personal squabbles and dealing with petty gossip. So, would all you children please grow up?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 05:38 PM

I hear all sorts of comments about Guest posts, but Max and Jeff and I still think we need to accommodate posts from people who don't want to register. We think it's the only way to keep this a growing, vibrant community instead of an inbred group of people drowning in their own smalltalk and inside jokes and bickering.

However, that being said, if a nasty note is posted anonymously, there's something more frightening and ominous about it. Even if it isn't intended, an anonymous message of disagreement tends to take on a leering, threatening tone. There are very few messages from registered Mudcatters that are frightening, but such is often the case with our anonymous posts.

If a person posts anonymous information about music, or makes a positive comment, almost everybody can accept that easily. Anonymity is disagreeable only when the text of the message is disagreeable - and then that anonymity tends to amplify that frightening nature of a message.

Shambles can say whatever he likes about me, and it's very unlikely that his messages will be deleted - despite all his complaints about deletions, the only Shambles messages that get deleted are the duplicate ones he posts in two or three locations. I may not like what he has to say and I may be convinced that he's an idiot and a troll - but at least he has the courage to use his own identity when he speaks, and I respect that.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 02:05 AM

Oh, grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 02:12 AM

Ebbie that probably makes this point rather well. It is time for our forum to be ALLOWED to grow-up.

As for indulging in - encouraging or just tolerating 'witch hunts, we don't have to look too far. The danger in this toleration of witch hunting by Joe and Co of anyone who has any criticsm of Joe and Co is that the witch hunt will over time develop a momentum of its own.

Forums Discussion Groups

We don't know who is part of Joe and Co - with to power to CENSOR our contributions so there could well be many more who are not setting an example and following the highest standards - who in fact are following a double standard, which others are supporting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: mooman
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 04:18 AM

Dear Shambles,

With regard to your example 4 below, that incident concerned a particularly nasty and personal set of attacks made anonymously (probably by (a) UK person(s)) on a well-respected and liked Mudcatter of long standing. If I had been Joe, I would have deleted the posts too, done some research and posted a similar message.

Personally, I think the balance is about right and of the 2000+ posts I've made under this or my previous moniker, to my knowledge none have been deleted. But there again...I don't go round making personal attacks under my Mudcat name or as a "Guest".

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 06:33 AM

1 Should the punishment fit the crime and does it currently?
I can't see anything here I'd call "a punishment".

2 Are all the volunteers authorised to administer summary justice and censor other's postings – without the poster's knowledge or permission – based only on their value judgement?
That seems a reasonable way of doing it to me - if someone with this role makes too many mistakes or is acting maliciously, they should cease to be allowed to carry on. "Summary justice" is a hyped up expression in this context. This isn't a spaghetti western.

3 Is there to be no difference to be seen between an abusive post and say an incoherent one?
Where people abusive posts it is appropriate to try to discourage them from doing so; people who make incoherent posts may benefit from being helped to avoid doing so on occasion. In both cases it might sometimes be appropriate for the posts to be removed,

4 Is a sensible and responsible example being set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?
Courtesy is always appropriate. So is plain speaking. (And if you think that those PMs from Joe are "abusive"...)

5 Is it really too much to ask that those that would volunteer to judge (and punish) us – can be expected to always set the standards and be judged themselves by these standards?
Not too much to ask, and my experience is that that is precisely what we get.

Basically there are two ways of running things in any community - family, village, nation – one is having a system of laws and tribunals and all that; and is the other involves trusting people to do the right thing. The latter way can break down, and isn't always possible, but where it's possible to do it the second way, and have things work reasonably satisfactorily, that's the system I prefer. That's a personal preference, and I think that in the Mudcat it works pretty well. It's organisationally untidy, but I can stand a fair amount of that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Mr Happy
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:26 AM

Amos: Q. 'what is the sound of one behind clapping?'

A. John Cage's 4'33" ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 08:35 AM

With regard to your example 4 below, that incident concerned a particularly nasty and personal set of attacks made anonymously (probably by (a) UK person(s)) on a well-respected and liked Mudcatter of long standing. If I had been Joe, I would have deleted the posts too, done some research and posted a similar message.

With respect - the point was simply that Amos asked to see evidence of 4. Is a sensible and responsible example being to set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?

4. No. But then, I haven't seen this happen. I'd like some specifics and some context.

This is what Joe had to say (about me) in the Guest Postings thread - I may not like what he has to say and I may be convinced that he's an idiot and a troll - The context of this thread was that a UK poster was making the point that they had been wrongly accused by Joe
in a PM of making anonymous attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 08:46 AM

Joe was out of line to imply you were an idiot. You are not an idiot.

But you are misinterpreting the nature and magnitude of these things; and if the examples you gave above are the worst this community has to live through, then we ai'nt doing half bad.

As for you being a troll, well, that could be argued, as it asometimes appears that you will trot the same complaints out as long as anyone will react to them, not out of interest in discussion.

Both of these are opinions only. I have been called much worse by people on this forum, and you know, somehow I just survived!

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 09:42 AM

Amos I don't know why I am bothering to provide these examples as you have either ignored or excused them before and you probably will again -

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 10:11 AM

Excuse me, Sham, but that is not what I did. Are you so stuck in argumentive mode that when someone says you're right about something you can't hear it?

I did give you a less generous opinion on a couple of other points, but it IS my opinion. Should I give you some other opinion? I don't think so. Don't like mine? Understandable -- apply elsewhere.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:21 AM

R 4 Is a sensible and responsible example being set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?

A 4. No. But then, I haven't seen this happen. I'd like some specifics and some context.

Amos - You say no and I supplied the evidence that you ask for - So you have now finally accepted Joe did call another poster names and should not have...That alone is enough to destroy the 'snow job' you have up to now been trying to maintain.

But having finally accepted and agreed that I am right to question if a sensible and resonable example is being set and on the evidence supplied - finally agreed with me and accepted that it is NOT being set - you then go on to give an opinion and qualify whether the name was apt or serious - what has that got to do with the question? From that I am not too sure if many folk would have thought you and had reached agreement on anything.

As you know the issue is not the name but who is taking part and setting the example of name-calling and encouraging others that this behavior is OK. So now we are finally in agreement on something how do WE address this and what do you intend to do about it?

It would look as if you just intend to carry on with your 'snow job' and to claim that I am the agumentitive one. When a claim is made you tend to claim it is wide and speculative - when the firm evidence is provided to support that claim and you eventually accept it as a fact - you then go on to excuse and qualify it.........As I predicted you would.

I would like to have a sensible debate - based on the evidence - I have no intention of challenging your entitlement to opinions even though they may be attempting to cover-up the facts that you have finally agreed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:29 AM

Roger, I did a search on your posts back to the beginning in 1998. You have been setting yourself up on the cross since very early on. Same old game, create a false issue, get people to debate it, then set yourself up in your own mind as the long suffering voice of reason. Time to get a new game, old boy. You only look like a pathetic case when you continue to flog the equine corpse.

You have made a couple of points over the years that had merit. For what it is worth, these threads have caused me to give a great deal of thought to my activities as a Clone. But a broken clock is right twice a day. You have now taken the shred of truth and sufficiently diluted it with your pathological need to be heard so as to take away whatever good effect you may have had. Give it a rest, Roger.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:54 AM

Amos - You say no and I supplied the evidence that you ask for - So you have now finally accepted Joe did call another poster names and should not have...That alone is enough to destroy the 'snow job' you have up to now been trying to maintain.


Roger,

You're just bloody unbelievable, ya know? I don't go to the trouble of trying to maintain a courteous discussion with you in order to have you insult me, you parboiled witherspoon! Let me point out that you have just demonstrated the mechanism of your own endless self-induced victimization: lure them in to a dialogue and then slice 'em up. Then wonder why you somehow end up out of people to talk to... Well, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. We're done now. I am not investing energy into a dialogue which is intended from the start to be some kind of covert, manipulative mellerdrammer. How's that for a snow job, then?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Justa Picker
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:12 PM

So sad and so laughable that apparently no one sees the bigger picture.

(a) It's an internet forum. Period. People that rely on this place as their sole connection with the real world, need to seek professional help for their obvious psychoseez, NOW!

(b) In the end none of our opinions matter a rats ass, about how and what we'd like the forum to be. All suggestions and attempts to manipulate change in how WE want the forum to be, are totally irrelevant. Get over it now, and stop repeating these types of threads; threads that attack guests; threads where guests attack members, etc.etc. that are repeated and rehashed every few months.

With a flick of his magic wand (if he so chooses) this place could be focussed and moderated. Make no mistake, the way it is, IS QUITE DELIBERATE. Again get over it, accept it, or leave. You will NOT change anything with your rants.

(c) Joe Offer (unfortunately because of the puppet master) acts like a boxer in a ring, forced to fight with his legs in shackles, and one arm tied behind his back. This is also for the amusement of the puppet master and quite deliberate. Accept no other excuses.

(d) The puppet master is definitely having the last laugh on all of you. He enjoys the anarchy, especially the anarchy created by allowing non-members to post and ALL the ensuing threads complaining of such which continously recylce like a sewage plant processing water. AGAIN - Get over it now. IT'S ALL VERY INTENTIONAL AND PART OF AMUSING THE PUPPET MASTER.

This is the only internet forum I know of that allows non members to post. And it for that reason (and the anarchy this creates) that this place was never able to attract serious funding from commercial sources; and in attracting AND KEEPING new, serious musical contributors. (I have tried to interest at least half a dozen serious contributors who's musical knowledge rivals those of such respected members as Dale Rose, M. Ted, Gargoyle (yes Gargoyle!) and a few others here. They took a look around and said "no thanks.")

The fact that " A MAGAZINE DEDICATED TO FOLK AND BLUES MUSIC" is no longer part of the Mudcat logo, should cure all detractors of their whining about wanting to make this place more focussed. Get over it and get a life. Again, INTENTIONAL AND DELIBERATE.

THIS IS ONE BIG AQUARIUM TO ITS OWNER - nothing more.
Perhaps it was once upon a time, until power corrupted absolutely.

(e) The Puppet Master has absolutely no class. He does not personally acknowledge nor thank individual financial contributors on a personal level. Therefore since he had a manners-bypass somewhere along the way, why should anyone contribute a dime to this gold fish bowl?
This is has got to be the largest dysfunctional "family" I've ever seen in my life. Sad that there's no one willing to step up to the plate and cure it. Again, intentional and deliberate.

(f) Shambles has contributed a helluva lot more musically to this place than the member-troll who began this thread. For someone who works in tech-support he sure is useless at sharing detailed information here, about various tech problems that occur to members (but real good about whining about his love life and his depression.) Fortunately though we have John in Kansas. Anyone thanked you lately John? I THANK YOU!

(g) If this place was moderated, and membership was required to post along with posted IP addresses accompanying each post, you would not have to engage supposition to figure out who's who behind "guest" postings whether civil and maligned. I don't buy any of the arguments in favour of GUESTS being allowed to post. It's complete and utter bullshit. There are good cookies and bad cookies.

(h) Think very carefully and plan what you would do, if this place went down permanently tomorrow...because it will at some point, when the hassles outweight the amusement, for the puppet master.

Those of you with severe internet psychosis should start planning where you'll get your forum fix, as well as your identity and online sense of belonging and importance.

RANT OFF.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:34 PM

JEeze, JP!! AN AQUARIUM??? You mean...we're all...just FISH??? Oh, my GAWD!! I'm a FISHHHHH???? I can't believe this!! Why didn't somebody TELL ME????


ROTFLMAO


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Justa Picker
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:42 PM

Yes Amos. :-)
Just think back to the beginning of Python's "Meaning of Life", at the beginning of the film with all the fish saying 'mornin'n to each other.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:44 PM

Anyone with a conscience, true or not, is aware of the validity of SOME of these contentions. However, I think you go a tad over the top, JP. "Puppet master"? You have read more Machiavelli than is good for you. You know what they say about a little knowledge.

IMO

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 02:09 PM

You're just bloody unbelievable, ya know? I don't go to the trouble of trying to maintain a courteous discussion with you in order to have you insult me, you parboiled witherspoon!

*Smiles*

Amos - In your so-called courteous discussion with me, in the post you refer to - you did rather nicely say you don't consider me to be an idiot but you then go on to justify me fitting the description of a troll.

I have found you to be an intelligent man but your determination to make me labour points that are perfectly obvious - and at the same time blame me for extending and hijacking threads where you have made as many contributions as I - is rather testing the immpression I have gained of you.

I am not going to be provoked into of calling you names in return. One reason is that if I were to that - I fear that I would not be immune from charges of calling other 'catters' names and there would be many calls to close or edit this thread.

Your bluster is one way of getting out of the fact that you have finally accepted at least one of my major points. And that you may hope that this indignant reation will enable you to avoid answering my question about what you proposed to do - if anything - about Joe and Co's bad example of calling the poster's names. Except of course to follow it this bad example........

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 06:51 PM

4 Is a sensible and responsible example being set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?

Courtesy is always appropriate. So is plain speaking. (And if you think that those PMs from Joe are "abusive"...)

The nature of PMs of course are not for public display, I will continue to respect that convention.

The two examples posted were not of course PMs from Joe - they were posted publicly in the Guest Posting thread. The claim was not that they were abusive or the extent of that abuse - they were evidence of those who would volunteer to judge us setting the example of name-calling those whose views they did not agree with or understand.

Did Joe publicly write that he considered me to be an idiot and a troll?
Is this name-calling setting a sensible and responsible example and do you consider this then to be "courtesy"?

As you know I have been called a lot worse things and don't really care what names I am called. However, if the big no-no is claimed to be censoring abusive postings and the name-calling of fellow 'catters' - to prevent some posters from being offended - Is it not reasonble to expect those who volunteer to judge us to set better standards than they currently do? And for them to be judged by those same standards - if not even higher ones and certainly not to been seen to be setting double standards?

Should they not ensure that ALL members are not encouraged and are not encouraging others to indulge in this scapegoating - where certain individuals with certain views - appear to be considered as 'fair-game' and where the normal conventions do not appear to apply?

Kevin you well know the points I am being forced to labour - I would be grateful if you did not make me labour them yet again. Perhaps you and others can help in addressing them?

Somewhere between the extremes of the 'snow job' perfect fairyland of Amos and the 'puppetmaster' nightmare of Justapicker - lies the true situation. Good folk trying to do their best. It does not help them or us to praise them uncritically or to slag them off whatever they try do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:16 PM

It's not that I don't understand what you are saying, Roger, it's that I don't agree with you, so there's no need to feel "forced to labour".

I just feel glad the Mudcat is here, and I'm pretty happy with how it works, and grateful to the people who put time and effort into into helping it work. If from time to time they make the odd mistake, who doesn't?

The examples you give, Shambles, of what you are complaining about just don't add up, in my judgement, to very much that is worth complaining about. There's a difference between suggestions for change and improvement, and this kind of thing.

The insults you identify don't seem too serious. "Troll." "Idiot." I've had far worse from other posters. Agreed, that's a different matter from getting them in a semi-official capacity. But when we get under people's skin we can't be surprised if they scratch, and as scratches go, those seem, to me, pretty mild.

(And justa picker - you're a great musician, but...)

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:42 PM

Shambles, I can agree that Joe Offer might have bitten his tongure rather than go public with his opinion of you. And remember, it is ONLY his opinion an opinions are malleable; I have little doubt that he would be happy to change it if given reason. If it would make you feel better, why not PM Joe and ask for a public apology?

I too am just glad to have this forum- I don't require Max or Joe O or the joeclones to be super-human. Thank goodness that they behave better than some of us do when we get carried away!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:45 PM

Joe and I got into it, in an very ugly way a few years ago, right here in front of gawd and everyone. We got over it. He is, after all, human like the rest of us. Suprise, surprise!

So when do I get my Joe Clone Policeperson's Badge and who wants to get interrogated first? In the Temple of the Golden Globes, of course; then it'll be off to the NYCFTTS! No doughnuts, though, the aliens ate them all!

kat

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:48 PM

Actually, Roger, I think I am compelled to withdraw my confession. If I had known how inappropriate, misguided and insensitive your criticisms were going to be, I would probably have secretly ended up considering you an idiot, too! But, in general, I'd have been too polite to say so. You, on the other hand, seem top have no such compunction.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 09:29 PM

For what it's worth...

I think Joe Offer is doing a great job, I'm astounded by the patience and care that McGrath and Amos are taking in their responses to Shambles... I enjoyed justa's dark vision... micca is a brilliant shining star...

But Ohmygoodness Shambles... what a load of self indulgent crap! If you get some understanding, you seem to either laugh it off, or ignore it... That horse is so dead I'm starting to think you are simply playing it... having mistaken it perhaps, for a well tuned drum...

IMHO, it's your "Golden Vanity"...

All the best, and could you simmer down a bit please? ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:13 AM

justapicker...your 3rd incarnation here is beginning to resemble your 1st..

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 02:12 AM

If you get some understanding, you seem to either laugh it off, or ignore it...

Some evidence of that would be welcome.

But is it is not rather pointless to qualify - yes well it did happen - it shouldn't or that it was not too serious or whatever - when you have been maintaining that such things are not so and asking to see the evidence? If we can ALL finally accept that there is a problem and not just to the individual who has their contributions deleted - we can try to ensure that it does not happen again.

I have not stated that folk are conspiring together to create a fascist regime. However I do think that I have provided much evidence to prove that it is a cock-up and that there is no real common thought about what this censorship action is supposed to acheive or when how and who does this or indeed where. For example should the BS not be free from this intervention?

All this has allowed a double standard to creep in and where it is accepted by many that mistakes are being made - my main point is that these mistakes are simply being allowed to be repeated and the lessons are not being learned from them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: mooman
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 09:23 AM

Dear Justapicka,

Knowing Max's policy and views on this matter I must respectfully disagree with your "puppermaster" post. Max owns this site and is probably one of the most tolerant people on it. For the record, I think Joe and the other Clones do a sterling job and, as far as I can see, try to confine deletions to nasty personal attacks rather than courteous (and quite normal) differences of opinion (guests included).

Just my humble opinion of course.

Peace

moo (not a "clone" or so-called "insider")

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST,weerover
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 09:51 AM

Having skimmed through most of the foregoing messages, I can't help but think that some people have got way too much time on their hands.

wr

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:03 PM

I think Joe and the other Clones do a sterling job and, as far as I can see, try to confine deletions to nasty personal attacks rather than courteous (and quite normal) differences of opinion (guests included).

It's not that I don't understand what you are saying, Roger, it's that I don't agree with you, so there's no need to feel "forced to labour".

If the video evidence of Rodney King is shown on TV being kicked and punched - is that not evidence that (at least some) LA's finest are not doing a good job or setting a good example? Remember also that they have clear and understood rules to work to and to protect us.

Is it really sensible - having seen it - to deny that evidence - to go on to still express a personal opinion that that are doing a good job? What value can that opinion hold - if it is held despite the evidence? Is it not a bit unwise to start to qualify the extent of the poor man's abuse by saying things like 'it was not too bad', 'they were not kicking him too hard' or 'they did not actually kill him' - or even that he was enjoying it??????????????

This is what I mean by being forced to labour things. Not opinions for you to agree with or not - but solid rock-bottom evidence that demonstrate what folk defend - is not in fact what is happening............

If someone has a bruise - it is not going to go away just because you express an opinion that it is not there. You may have an opinion that the bruise was not hurting as much as the person said it did - but they are to one feeling the pain and should know. Would it not be more sensible to make some real effort to try and ensure that this person did not receive any more bruises?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: mooman
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:13 PM

Sorry...but you've lost me now Shambles with the analogy you give!

All the best

moo

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:28 PM

You guys are really VERY dull. I'll go elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:40 PM

Sorry Mooman - I will just refer you to the evidence.

The Memorial Thread

The above is an example of a volunteer taking editing action without the correct reporting procedure. According to Joe – they are/were supposed to contact him first. Without the poster's knowledge or permission some selected (non abusive) posts were taken from this thread on the main forum where the thread was posted and place in a new thread. This was done only one the personal value judgement of the volunteer concern and Joe later stated – that he did not agree with the action – but it was too late to change. I think Kevin expressed an opinion in this thread that he also considered this to be wrong?

Now mistakes happen but the lessons were not learned and a short while later persons unknown closed the following thread – for reasons unknown Guest Postings. I received a PM from Joe again stating that he did not agree with the action and that there had again been confusion and yet another break-down of the reporting procedure. This time the thread was re-opened.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:55 PM

The Memorial thread link you referred us to, Shambles, does not serve your agenda well. It very clearly shows a thinking Joe Offer trying to establish and maintain coherent ground rules with the help of others' input; it does not come close to showing an arbitrary authoritarian.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:59 PM

Shambles...you are totally confusing and misusing the concepts of 'proof' and 'evidence'. Videos of R. King proves he was hit...it does not prove what was said or what his or the officers state of mind was..etc...and thus it will always be open to interpretation whether it was 'excessive' use of force....as will 'exactly' what happened in JFK's assassination, no matter how many ballistics tests are conducted or how many feet of film analyzed.

As far as Mudcat goes, you seem to be claiming that the very fact that some posts have been deleted 'proves' that the act of deletion is obviously indefensible! You cannot seem to even comprehend that anyone could disagree: " If we can ALL finally accept that there is a problem..."...... we do NOT all 'accept' OR agree..in fact, most of the comments clearly DISagree with you, above & beyond the fact that Max is ok with *his* system running as it is.

You 'seem' to have switched from blanket condemnation of editing and/or deleting posts to claiming that the BS section should be exempt. Nowhere was it ever decided that the BS area was fair game for any sort of spam, stalking, hate messages, personal insults and inhoherent babbling! The BS section was merely to allow 'reasonable' off topic discussion to be avoided by those who wanted the basic music & technical discussions to be less cluttered. The BS area allows a LOT of latitude in plain silliness, political discussions, religious debate and even THIS interminable meta-debate of the rules of debate!

You need to get used to the idea--you have proved nothing about whether some 'censorship' here is right or wrong...IT IS A MATTER OF OPINION!!..just like discussions of God or whether G. Bush and T. Blair are assholes or not, or whether aliens exist (those are 'obvious' to some!)...

Not only is it not a matter of a vote, since Max gets the only real vote, but if it WERE a matter of a vote, you are out-voted! Even J0hn from Hull didn't want his deleted posts to be defended!

The only vote you get is the same one you get with the TV 'off' button. Please...talk about other things or push that button!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:59 PM

That is a matter of opinion - I posted it to demonstrate a fact that the same mistakes are just repeated.