 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Guest Postings
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 26 Dec 03 - 01:34 AM Shambles-You are mad! I once shared a cell with a bloke called Terry, he was convinced there was a big conspiracy, and the russians were putting rays into his head, your posts on this thread remind me of him! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Big Mick Date: 26 Dec 03 - 02:38 AM Shambles, I thought you were done with this place? If I dig, wouldn't I find that you resigned and started your own site, and a pretty good site it was/is. And it was just as you wanted it. Do me a favor? After all these years, and you bitchin' about the same aul load of shite, why don't you just take it to your site and control it? It isn't changing here.........period. You just look like an idiot with nothing better to do, buddy. C'mon, lay off. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 26 Dec 03 - 02:54 AM heloo Large Mick, i like your'e CD, its really nice, i still play it all the time, i waent going to buy it, but bill sabels told me to, he said it was good, so i did, and its reallt nice.john |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 26 Dec 03 - 03:02 AM yes, if you dont like it here, make you own website, and stop making trubble.john |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Big Mick Date: 26 Dec 03 - 10:34 AM Thank you, John. That is very nice of you to say. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: John MacKenzie Date: 26 Dec 03 - 10:48 AM A Merry Christmas to all our readers, especially Shambles. {BTW the original shambles was an abattoir [sp]in York} John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST,Bogeyman Date: 26 Dec 03 - 11:26 AM And heeeeerrreeee's Joey's Sycophants and the Mudcat Royals, bitching about Their Common Enemy--the truth! http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame79.html http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame38.html http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame20.html The majority Mudcat opinion is WRONG! Shambles has nailed this place, and the power hierarchy. Hence everyone screaming SHUT DOWN THIS THREAD! SILENCE SHAMBLES! No wonder Shrubya & Co. gets away with their abuses. This place is a micro of the greater macro--let the anon guest and the expression of a dissenting political view be FOREVER THE ENEMY OF THE GREAT MUDCAT! Joe Offer actually sucks as an internet forum moderator (see the part about absolute power corrupting). His nasty comments about forum participants would never be allowed on a legitimate internet forum with high standards for it's community. Why? Because it is the first sign of a petty tyrant exercising petty tyranny. Those who support Joe Offer are those who JUST LIKE HIM! Those who agree with his personal vendetta list--and it is a politically motivated, vendetta oriented list, to be sure. You don't agree with Joe's politics, or you like/defend the posters Joe hates, and you are on the list too! All bow to Joe! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: John MacKenzie Date: 26 Dec 03 - 12:13 PM I agree with Guest Bogeyman that calls for the thread to be closed are wrong, it is useless closing the stable door etc. However the rest of his post is the usual screwball anonymous guest stuff. Still it gives us something to laugh at for Christmas. Happy Holidays.....John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Amos Date: 26 Dec 03 - 01:33 PM Thanks, Giok -- I was about to get pissed off again. I dunno about anyone else but as far as I am concerned it is not about the majority. It is about governing agreements. The whining is about wanting to govern by disagreements. It doesn't work that way, because of how a site is set up. You could go throw bombs at government cars, I suppose. That might make you happy. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Bill D Date: 26 Dec 03 - 01:41 PM "The majority Mudcat opinion is WRONG!" ....fascinating. Funny how having fun and trusting your friends leads to mass brainwashing and corrupted values. Ah, well...guess we'll just have to suffer in our misguided confusion. (what, ME? Cynical?....naawwwwww.....) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST,Bogeyman Date: 26 Dec 03 - 01:55 PM BillD, you might want to educate yourself about the phenomenon I described above: Echo Chamber Effect (Hint: I refer to the metaphoric definition). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Bill D Date: 26 Dec 03 - 02:33 PM "...you might want to educate yourself about the phenomenon I described above:" nope, I think not. I've been here 7+ years. Met people, talked to people, traded songs and stories, broken bread and shared a beer or two. And I'm old enough and smart enough and cynical enough that I can decide what's good for me without trolls whispering (or shouting) in my ear, thankyewverymuch. Go eat a Billy Goat Gruff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST,Bogeyman Date: 26 Dec 03 - 02:49 PM LOL! Ah Bill D, a better, more shining example of Echo Chamber Effect one couldn't have asked for! And a happy, healthy new year to you! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Cluin Date: 26 Dec 03 - 06:49 PM Holy piss! What a waste of electrons this thread is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Dave the Gnome Date: 27 Dec 03 - 04:20 PM Metaphorically, an echo chamber can refer to any situation in which some force or idea is amplified by transmission inside an enclosed space. For example, observers of journalism in the mass media have described the echo chamber effect: one purveyor of information will make a claim, which many like-minded people then repeat, overhear, and repeat again (often in an exaggerated or otherwise distorted form) until most people assume that some extreme variation of the story is true. Postings by Guest, bogeyman: 3 (At least) By Guests in general (who could be bogeyman): ??? Postings by BillD: 2 I don't know either. Just wondering who is doing the whispering...? Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST Date: 27 Dec 03 - 10:44 PM I'M LADYJEAN, AND I KEEP GETTING LISTED AS GUEST. I'M A FLAMING EGOTIST. THIS IS VERY ANNOYING. AS I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS INTERNET THING, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY. BUT I'M NOT A GUEST. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: artbrooks Date: 27 Dec 03 - 11:36 PM LadyJean, go to the drop-down menu in the upper right hand corner, where it says "Quick Links", click on the down arrow and then on "Login." Then enter your Mudcat name, hit "submit" then enter your name again and your password. That should get you recognized as yourself again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Liz the Squeak Date: 28 Dec 03 - 06:50 AM One wonders if there would be all this discussion if Shambles had been the direct target of a Guest insult..... Been there, done that, got the printout. One also wonders how amicably it would have been sorted had Shambles been the one accused of anonymous and inflamatory guest postings. Again, been there, done that, found the piggybacker. As mentioned above, it is the very nature of anonymous postings that hurt the most, not always the content of the post. My arse is fat, it was a lot fatter, but it wasn't Guests' public declaration of such that made me do something about it. Sometimes people feel so strongly about a subject that they need to ask a question with a different or no name attached. There are many such threads archived here and almost all of them deal with very personal issues. Anonymity is chosen because this is a public forum and as also noted above, many people here, not just in the UK, know each other intimately, biblically and for considerable numbers of years. Those that are genuinely asking for help and advice, whether taken or not, usually have a psuedonym. Those that are making deliberate and personal attacks tend not to. There are some very valid comments on this thread, from all sides, but the matter is old news and the issue is closed. Ranting here will not change the policing of this forum, a policing which it will always need, regardless of Guest or other status. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Dead Horse Date: 28 Dec 03 - 08:38 AM Okay! So how do I deliberately delete my cookie so's I can post anonymous appreciations of LTS's bum? Answers on a postcard will be ignored. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: John MacKenzie Date: 28 Dec 03 - 09:19 AM I'll tell you how if I can make similarly appreciative comments about Kay's bum, [and I don't mean you!] John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Dec 03 - 11:09 AM Y'all need to send me pictures of each and I'll be the judge. At least 3 angles must be shown for a fair and impartial assessment: 1) The classic Full Moon 2) The bent over Harvest Moon 3) Either pose with "pressed ham" Any other photos would of course be helpful in making my selection.. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Dec 03 - 01:39 PM Personally I'd trust Joe Offer to carry out this kind of role more than I'd trust just about anyone else. I wouldn't do it if you paid me, and I wouldn't do it anywhere near as well either. The Shambles has written some pretty good songs. And I think that might perhaps be a better medium for protesting about things. .......... I suppose there's no point in saying it yet again, but the stuff about nameless GUEST postings isn't about anonymity at all. A GUEST with a handle is just as anonynmous, and so for that matter is a member with a pseudonym. But a GUEST who posts without any name is in effect using the same name as umpteen other GUESTs who do the same thing, sometimes several in the same thread, and that just gets confusing and interferes with thebfree flow of communication. (And it makes it pretty well impossible to tell whether a particular remark is meant ironically or not.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Liz the Squeak Date: 28 Dec 03 - 02:32 PM Gentlemen (using the term loosely) - private viewings only I'm afraid. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: John MacKenzie Date: 28 Dec 03 - 06:18 PM Pan-o-rama?? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: artbrooks Date: 28 Dec 03 - 06:24 PM Loaf pan? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Liz the Squeak Date: 28 Dec 03 - 06:28 PM 3-D large screen format. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Nigel Parsons Date: 28 Dec 03 - 07:47 PM It is worth noting that the 'Help' thread referred to by Shambles in his posting 20 Dec 03 : 03.24AM refers to the 'help' thread Why Are My Threads Being Deleted which contains two messages by Shambles, and numerous unsigned messages by a 'Shambles Clone' who appears to have the Shambles 'rant style' off to a 'T' I am not trying to suggest that the other messages are from Roger (The Shambles) but the style is remarkably consistent, and it either points out the fact that an anonymous poster can appear to be other than himself, or that 'The Shambles' sometimes hides behind anonymity. I make no claims over which is the case, but either case shows the disadvantage of allowing incognito posting I happily append my name to this message (despite earlier criticism from Roger) Nigel Parsons |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: akenaton Date: 28 Dec 03 - 08:31 PM Guest bogeyman.... Thanks for Flame Warrior links ,I really pissed myself laughing..."All of Mudcat is there" my self included.I had great fun puting names to the faces . I think we all take ourselves too seriously, and as somebody else said were all anonymous anyway whether we sign or not. Its nice to be able to get things "off our chests " but we shouldn't kid ourselves that we can change anything. As for "nasty" guests, you can have abit of fun arguing with them or just ignore them..Who cares??? We can all be nasty occasionally. Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 28 Dec 03 - 09:40 PM Nigel-As i posted in the thread, i pposted 1 message to that thread, and 1 mesage only, the whole thing got totally out of hand. threre were about 45 mesages in that thread, i wish i had never started it! {i was very drunjk one day [ i have a drink problenm, i''m alcoholic], i started a thrad, but it was a mixed up drunjken jumble, didnt make sense], it was NOT deleted by joe, , anyway the message i got was sonmeyttjing like= hi john, your message looks a bit messed up, we cant really tell waht your on about!, any cjhance of you posting it again wehn you sober up?. cheers .whover sent message. My reply was along the lines of " dear max, or whoever delted my message, screw you!, i'll post wqht i like, how dare you say it was messed up, and invite me to resubmit it at will ! but, having sobered up, i realised, it was a drunken thread, most people would not understand it, so ahts the point in sending it then! The thing we all need to realise here, is that this is MAX website, he can run it exactly, how he wants, [guest, no guest, wahtever] no idea weaht it costs, but must be a lot, eg, most of the folk music lovers in hull are here] I say for definet, if this was my site, and folk satarted moaning, [to much censoring etc etc etc], i would just switch it off! fuck em, cant be bothred, i run my own little site, for local folk sessions, there was 1 bloke trying to plug his astroolgy business there. i banned him, "astrology my arse, piss off" is astology anything to do with my site? no welll then, fuck off.johh anf stop moaning asav well |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 28 Dec 03 - 09:44 PM astology id not flokm muscic, = if you want to taslk abouy astrology, make an astrogly site and fuck off.john |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 29 Dec 03 - 12:42 AM Joe - the Mudcat capitulated its role as a DT winnower anda folk music forumseveral years ago.
It is a little late to draw the stampeding boars back into the barn.
Let the Brits play and have their fun....just because it isn't yourse or mines humor....who are we to criticize our kindred cousins?
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 29 Dec 03 - 12:50 AM mr gargoyle-your spelling and grammar use leaves a lot to be desired yours [sic], stampeding [sic], humur [sic], sincerley [sic] learn to spell, or bugger off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 29 Dec 03 - 06:04 PM John from Hull Do you spell the way you do to try to be clever (not!) or are you just poorly educated? why close a perfectly interesting thread? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Bassic Date: 30 Dec 03 - 08:54 AM Mudcat is not a democracy, it is at best a benevolent dictatorship. I dont have a problem with that, after all, I do have a choice as to wether I "live" here or not. For the most part, the benevolant dictatorship creates a good place to be, one with considerable freedom and creativety. But as with all dictatorships, there is the potential for power to corupt. I presume that this is the "fear" that Shambles is trying to highlight. It is something that we should all be aware of and guard against. Is it a problem at the moment? Personally, I dont think so but that is only my opinion. Are Joe and the other clones imposing their own view on the cat by how they do their work? Of course they are, that is why they were chosen, for their tollerence, good sence and thoughtfullness. Do they get it wrong sometimes? Yes, inevetably and it should be pointed out when they do and they should admit their errors. (Which it seems they usually do). Would it be better without them? I believe not, at least for the time being. The special nature of the Mudcat and its unique family/comunity feel depend on the "Royalty" to maintain the environment which has alowed that comunity to flurish. Will it last forever? No, something will change in that unique combination of circumstances that will ultimatly lead to the demise of the cat, but the point is that this is just a tool of communication, its not the REASON we exist as people and friends and we can all move on and find other comunities or start them ourselfs. We have a choice. This is not life or death so there is no need to argue with life or death passion about who said what or did what. Debate the issues, use examples, give illustrations, that is healthy. But dont attack well meaning people personally, that is cheap argument and ultimatly shows a lack of thought and intelectual rigour and is just annother form of bullying in my view. Change my view with the strenght of your reasoning not the size of your verbal fist or the volume of your rhetoric! If the occasion comes where I want to challenge the Mudcat organisers about how they run this site then I dont want to have to scatle the battlements and cross the moat that they have had to build around themselfs because of the attacks that they are coming under. I want to be able to walk in the front door, as a respected member, tell them to their face, and change their ways. We still remember 1066 in this part of the world! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Big Mick Date: 30 Dec 03 - 09:46 AM Well said, Bassic. I want you to know that the clones are very judicious in their use of the edit. And each time the edit or delete is used it is run by Joe or Jeff. Also, there is communication between the clones to be sure that they are not being overly protective. And you hit it on the head when you indicated that when they perceive a mistake is made they will take the blame and correct it. They are not a lot of clones, and they are a very fair lot. Max has defined what the 'Cat is going to be, and whether clones agree or not, they attempt to always maintain Max's vision of the place. I know that many times I would have blocked folks, but that is not how we do it here. My view is that one should be registered to start any thread, but we don't do it here. Unlike Shambles, I accept that these are the rules and get on with it. My love for the site and its citizens exceeds my desire to change certain things. Isn't that the same as in any other unit of society? There is no perfect place, but this is our place. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Nemesis Date: 30 Dec 03 - 07:16 PM Bass .. "we still remember 1066 in this part of the World .." Where's that then, mate? Hastings-upon-Hull? :) Nem (Sussex girl) x |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Shambles Date: 31 Dec 03 - 02:11 AM I am a little confused now - as this thread was indeed CLOSED the last time I looked. Liz I am not saying that being verbally attacked is pleasant - just that there is a trade-off. As for me personally being subject to guest (or member) attacks over the years I have lost count of the number of times this has happened - you just resist the temptation to respond or expect there to be any other solution than to ignore it. Especially in the BS second division - what else would you expect to find if you open such a thread? I worry about Big Mick's memory. Mick you are thinking of Jon Freeman. Who you slagged off when he first posted - then became good buddies with and now he would appear to be off of your Christmas card list again - unlike our guest who I see you continue to insist on jousting with. Nigel I have never posted as a guest. The reasons for the posts on the Help forum were explained there on the Help forum. Please not let us encourage or be encouraged to join in any more witch-hunts.....Can we just be encouraged to mind our own business and to concentrate on our own contributions? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Nigel Parsons Date: 31 Dec 03 - 08:28 AM Shambles: "Can we just be encouraged to mind our own business and to concentrate on our own contributions?" Yes, I'm all in favour, if you would only follow your own guidelines. I'm sure both Kat & jOhn are capable of fighting their own corner if need be, but if there is any sign of censorship then we can expect to see you leap into the fray. "Can we just be encouraged to mind our own business and to concentrate on our own contributions?" Of course, it was you who first pointed the way to the thread in question as being of relevence here. I merely pointed out that it does further the discussion here, as either you were posting there incognito, or there was someone posting there with a sufficiently similar style to cause confusion. Either of those possibilities is reasonable cause for asking Guest posters to take on a consistent handle. Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Big Mick Date: 31 Dec 03 - 09:51 AM Yes, Roger, I stand corrected. I did get confused. Happens at my advanced age. But the main point still stands. You have been complaining the same complaint for years. It isn't going to change, and that is that. You only appear unable to quit floggin' that old, dead horse. And yes, I do enjoy the occasional round with the GUESTS. I love turning the tables on bullies and manipulators. Rightly put, Rog. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Shambles Date: 31 Dec 03 - 09:59 AM Personally I'd trust Joe Offer to carry out this kind of role more than I'd trust just about anyone else. I wouldn't do it if you paid me, and I wouldn't do it anywhere near as well either. We will never know if anybody could do the W.G role any better than Joe, (or even if the role is even necessary) because it would appear that no one is ever going to get the opportunity. For there is not a role, vacant or otherwise nor a job description or rules– there is just Joe. This makes it almost impossible to express any suggestion or fault with the role. Without this being seen as a personal attack on Joe's integrity and undoubted good intentions as to how he would like to shape our forum, by making his value judgements upon our contributions to our forum. As you say it is unpaid and it is not a function I would care to undertake even if it were paid. However it must have its advantages and attractions – as the present W.G shows no sign of handing over and there appears to be no shortage of willing disciples, eager to pass final judgement on the suitability of other people's postings on a forum set aside for their contributions. As for trust Kevin – I fear that there is no one who should ever willingly be entrusted with such God-like powers over their fellow man (except our creator Max). We can perhaps understand why Gods may wish to delegate these troublesome powers (to their son for example) – but the last experiment did not end too well – did it? Perhaps in the unlikely event of you or I being given these current arbitrary powers over Joe and all the other posters on our forum – it may then be possible to get a job description, rules and a clear idea who has the power to do what and when. I certainly suspect that if I were appointed to decide over the suitability of Joe's postings and started censoring those that did not conform to my personal concept of order – that he would be among the first people asking to see some rules……………… Mudcat is not a democracy, it is at best a benevolent dictatorship. I dont have a problem with that, after all, I do have a choice as to wether I "live" here or not. Bassic you make some good points. However I fail to see how any dictatorship can ever be considered as benevolent. It rather depends on the forum (or Royalty) that you find when first entering and whether there is any real justification for any insidious changes. The flooded canyons that now form Lake Powell and Lake Mead in the US West, are attractive to those who sail and rent houseboats. If you had entered them earlier there would have been different and more varied attractions. Unlike Shambles, I accept that these are the rules and get on with it. Mick all I am asking for is to see what these censorship rules are (especially for the BS section) so that we can have the choice. For the answers we are given are dishonest. They are that there are no hard and fast rules – when there are obviously many and that posts are only censored rarely and for certain reasons – when it is clear that this is simply not true as the examples given in this thread demonstrate. When asked – Joe says that he does not see a need for these hard and fast rules to be spelt out. To protect us – I suggest that we do need these rules to be spelt out– so that that the first time we find out that such a rules exists – is NOT when we transgress it. In any other sphere, this would be seen as a modest and reasonable request – why does it generate such hostility when expressed on our forum? I can't delete your threads and posts, as and when I feel like it – but the Witchfinder General can (and frequently does). ……What are the rules, who can censor what and when? I want you to know that the clones are very judicious in their use of the edit. And each time the edit or delete is used it is run by Joe or Jeff. Mick you may well believe this to be true but why should anyone take your word for it, when the evidence provided here demonstrates that the opposite is true? I gave the example of the Memorial Thread and linked to it. If you read it, you will see that the editorial action was already taken before anyone else was aware of it. Such action is not reversable and although Joe said that he did not agree with the action taken - it was too late. This is not an attack by me on individuals but a request for clarity that will not only inform us but will also protect these individuals from criticism. Every business has a list of who is authorised to do what and when - it should not be too difficult to have such a list, and for people to follow it, should it? If the forum must be run like a Government Department and it would appear that it must - we may as well do it properly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 31 Dec 03 - 10:09 AM Why trust anyone, especially Max, now that he is taking up the Piano Accordion? Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Jeri Date: 31 Dec 03 - 10:12 AM After discussing Mick's memory and earlier using JOhn from Hull's removed-and-replaced post (despite the fact JOhn had no problem with it) as evidence that Evil is being done, AND dreaming up negative personality traits for Joe - at length, you now think we should "Please not let us encourage or be encouraged to join in any more witch-hunts.....Can we just be encouraged to mind our own business and to concentrate on our own contributions?Feel free to set the example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Big Mick Date: 31 Dec 03 - 10:20 AM I will try this one more time, but I know that you are incapable or unwilling to accept it. Roger, it doesn't matter what you want. You are not entitled to what you are asking for. This is not a democracy. It is a website on the friggin' Internet. You have free choice to come here or not. The rules do not have to be published, or even explained. You simply can come here, or choose not to. Joe explains more than he needs to. You are lucky that he is such a decent guy. If I were what he is, I would just be done with you. He has tried a number of times, and with great patience, to get you off this. Max was very wise in making him the Chief Clone. I believe that the genesis of all this is that decision. I think that you wanted to be what Joe is. Ever since the days that you were a clone, and then not, you have been on this. I believe envy and anger drive this whole waste of bandwidth. Roger.... accept how it is or leave. That is my opinion. You are not forced to be here, and there are alternatives. I have seen the good work you can do, but it is in danger of being eclipsed by your just being a pain in the ass. Sorry to be so blunt, but those are my feelings. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST Date: 31 Dec 03 - 10:20 AM Said the Queen of the Witch Hunt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: artbrooks Date: 31 Dec 03 - 10:23 AM I think that I will go along with the originator of this discussion, and say it is time to close this |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Jeri Date: 31 Dec 03 - 10:35 AM I don't know about closing it, but the Shambles' crusade has been going on (in this thread) for over two weeks without anything new being said and nothing accomplished except people tiring of it. I strongly doubt that HE is going to be the one to stop beating what's left of that horse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Shambles Date: 31 Dec 03 - 10:36 AM I believe that the genesis of all this is that decision. I think that you wanted to be what Joe is. Ever since the days that you were a clone, and then not, you have been on this. Mick it would appear that facts are not important to you but there is a danger that others may consider that what you have to say is factual. For the record - I have never been a clone or would have ever wished to be one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Jeri Date: 31 Dec 03 - 10:40 AM He's still got you confused with Jon Freeman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST Date: 31 Dec 03 - 10:40 AM And then the Dark Prince of the Witch hunt weighs in too. Proving certain power mongers have plenty to keep secret and feel ashamed of--anytime the conversations reverts to "this isn't a democracy" you know the power mongering authoritarians are flexing their muscles to show us WHO IS BOSS AROUND HERE, BUSTER. Shambles isn't coming off the least bit like a disgruntled former employee. Shambles is coming off quite admirably, as a knowledgeable former insider, turned whistleblower on management. Which is why the current crop of bureauclones are so defensive about Shambles. The forum bureaucratic hierarchy has been set up to keep the peasants away from King Max, pure and simple. Power was handed to people who think and behave like Max does. Secretively, manipulatively, and dishonestly. There is no transparency or accountability here, either for the money sent in as donations, or on the rules of engagement for forum users. The clones, just like Max, rule by fear and intimidation. They keep telling us they are nice, decent people who wouldn't hurt a fly. The record shows the exact opposite. When this amount of secrecy is combined with the lack of transparency and accountability to users, you have the perfect storm scenario for abuse of power and corruption. And that is what you get when you sign on as a member in this place. Secret rules that only the priesthood of clones know and are allowed to enforce. Such rules are obviously arbitrary and often malicious, and reflect Max's contempt for the users of the forum. Because this IS what it all boils down to--Max and his Royal's contempt for many of the people who contribute here. No legitimate web forums operate like this. By originally claiming he was going to keep the forum unmoderated, Max has created a paradise for his "forum security" clones with egomaniacal power complexes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Big Mick Date: 31 Dec 03 - 10:41 AM Boy, Shamb, you are right again. You were never a clone. I seem to be confusing you and Jon a great deal. I must apologize again. But the rest of the post stands. In the words of the Beatles: Let it be. Mick |