BS: Opening threads - a debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:50 PM

Hey Joe....YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!!!

Here at our forum we need an unlimited supply of everything and access to everything not just what you want to give us. Only God is allowed that. For instance, only God gave Shambles a half-inch willie, YOU could not......well maybe if you had a big knife.

We want it all. We want spaces! We want names....DO you hear me? WE WANT NAMES! And don't pretend to hide behind your 5th amendment privilege.....Who are the clones and why do they keep fucking over poor Shambles? And who are you to take a knife to his tallywhacker?

We're all sick and tired of reason and common sense and things like logic. Give us the real dope for our forum.....er,uh.....I mean the real truth.....Shambles already is a dope and we only need one of him. I'm sure his wife thinks that is one too many and I would agree but we seem to be stuck with one and sorrowfully so is that poor woman. C'mon Joe.......No more truth and logic. Give us lies and complete bullshit!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: SINSULL
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:53 PM

And now he's tampering with the validity of my threads when I post them where I want to post them but he thinks that he knows better where to post them when he probably does not but he will never admit he does not because he thinks he is Max or that he representa all that Max wants when even Max isn't sure what he wants when he thinks about wanting anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 12:58 PM

It's purely a matter of function, not morals.

If the way you achieve - what some may judge to be more useful thread titles - is by volunteer fellow posters anonymously and selectively imposing changes to some of them (mainly it would appear - those titles created by me) without the originator's knowledge or permission - becomes purely a matter of morals.

For as has been pointed out here - the lack of such routine imposed judgement and pedantry was to some contributors - the aspect that attracted them to our forum and this freedom of expression was what separated our forum from the other ordinary sites.

Those sites where those posters who now wish to see such judgement and pedantry imposed upon some of their fellow posters here - would surely be more at home?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:00 PM

EXACTLY SINS!!!!!

..........I think...........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:05 PM

SHAMBLES SAYS:

If the way you achieve - what some may judge to be more useful thread titles - is by volunteer fellow posters anonymously and selectively imposing changes to some of them (mainly it would appear - those titles created by me) without the originator's knowledge or permission - becomes purely a matter of morals.

For as has been pointed out here - the lack of such routine imposed judgement and pedantry was to some contributors - the aspect that attracted them to our forum and this freedom of expression was what separated our forum from the other ordinary sites.

Those sites where those posters who now wish to see such judgement and pedantry imposed upon some of their fellow posters here - would surely be more at home?

Congratulations Shambo......Not only is there not a single sentence in the entire post, it's authentic gibberish as well.

Well Done!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:26 PM

You're still using the pompous sounding 'our forum' instead of a simple 'me'.

It is only your judgement - posted publicly - that this is "pompous sounding". Yet another pointless personal judgement of a named fellow poster - that will change nothing. To my mind - the use of this term is just recognition that all of our forum can read everything that is posted on our forum. And which can be retrieved at any time......

I tend to view the introduction of prefixes as some Governments are now beginning to see the introduction of yet more rules and laws - as opportunities to create yet more rulebreakers and criminals for society in general to pass yet more pointless judgements upon.


Can anononymously imposing a change without the originator's knowledge or permission on our forum really be described as "a tiny bit of guidance"?

---

Roger, Roger, roger - the editing actions are not anonymous - I take the responsibility for ALL of them. If you want to blame somebody, blame me. I'm your personal scapegoat. And while thread name changes may be made without your permission, they are never, never made without your knowledge. Boy, do I know that for a fact....
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: SINSULL
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:27 PM

Yeah, Joe! What he said!

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 01:43 PM

And a comfort blanket.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 02:34 PM

"It's not possible to have an equal number of spaces unless the prefixes most people seem to want and use are done away with."

I am just getting more confused by these explanations - perhaps I am not alone? The fault may well be mine but I will try again.

Can it be clearly explained to our forum how - when in a case where there was no prefix involved - how it was possible for our named volunteer to add the words 'Bob Dylan' to the thread's title - when the originator was not able to fit these words in and why the same ammount of spaces available for title creation cannot be equally provided to ordinary posters and our anonymous volunteer fellow posters?

If the forum asks, I'll expain to it, but just now I prefer to explain to you, because you're the one who asked. It's probably hopeless, but I can try:

The 10 spaces are reserved for a prefix. You have the option of selecting a prefix or not, but the 10 spaces are reserved anyway. The prefix block is assigned 10 and the type-in-the-title is assigned 40. The page is written that way and if you do a 'view source', you can see where it says 'SIZE="40" MAXLENGTH="40"'. It's the code. As far as I know, there is no way to say write code to "make the type-in block 10 spaces longer if a prefix is not selected."

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 03:11 PM

As far as I know, there is no way to say write code to "make the type-in block 10 spaces longer if a prefix is not selected."

Perhaps there is someone who does know enough to inform our forum? If I and our forum understand correctly - it would appear that the introduction of the so-called optional prefix seemed to have caused the discrepancy between the number of spaces available for title creation for anonymous volunteer fellow posters and us ordinary posters - in the first place.

So it must be possible to also now include the prefix block for in the editing screen which will result in all posters having an equal ammount of spaces available for thread title creation?

Or indeed to remove the prefix block from us ordinary posters - which would also have the end result of all posters having an equal ammount of spaces available for thread title creation. The concern - after all is only for clearer thread titles and for all posters to be seen to be treated equally on our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 03:13 PM

?? As far as I can remember there were prefixes here the first time I ever visited - which wasn't all that long after inaguration of the board.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 03:39 PM

In the beginning - there was the prefix......Before those who are supposed to have asked for this?

jeri said.
Shambles, are you trying to say you know better than those who asked for the other prefixes and now use them?

Perhaps someone who knows can inform our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: MMario
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 03:43 PM

yes - there were prefixes in the beginning - or shortly thereafter - and then people asked for more prefixes - because they do help in the searches - I know one *I* asked for was the Tune request and the tune add

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 04:23 PM

What I've said is fact. Anybody who would 'know more' is someone who could change the code, and I believe you're attempting to bait me. I think what you're up to is pretty clear to 'our forum, because your pretense at not understanding is a bit beyond believable.

In any case, Max would be the one you want to talk to. I'd hazard a guess that the feeling wouldn't be mutual.

Oh well. I've answered your question and that's all I really needed to do. Let me know if you have further incincere questions that you intend to disregard the answers to. I'll ignore them and wait for someone honest and reputable to ask. *smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 04:55 PM

It is only your judgement - posted publicly - that this is "pompous sounding". (Shambles)

My, my, Shambles, did you really not realise that I was using your own words on you? You did start this time with -posting publicly- what was only your own judgement that one argument from me was 'sinister sounding' when I was posting a serious argument which you pretend to read.

You are the one to tell us ad nauseam that we should not pass judgement upon others' posts. And what are you doing? You pass judgement. You are not doing what you are preaching. You behave here in a most hypocritical way.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:03 PM

When I post something that is thought to be too difficult to understand - the fault is mine.

When I do not understand something - the fault is again mine.

Am I being told that in order for a three letter prefix to be chosen for a thread title - 10 spaces have to be reserved for it? If I am - could not these 10 spaces be better utilised by being used for the title? Perhaps then the titles would be clearer and there would be no need to anonymously impose any changes in order to clarify them?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:08 PM

Yet another pointless personal judgement of a named fellow poster (Shambles)

Shambles,

Another untrue statement. Could you please start doing what you pretend to do and read the posts. I have very carefully not made a judgement of you, the person, but a judgement of one particular expression used by you.

I expect you to know the difference between "you have used a stupid argument" and "you are a stupid person".

Your posts give me the impression that in this particular situation (was that clear enough???) you do not understand what you read.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:10 PM

And I am still interested to understand, Shambles, why you use the expression 'our forum' when there is no evidence yet that anyone else but you claims to want to know.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:11 PM

How's about them Cubbies??????

Philly speak; "Jeet?" "No, djou?"

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:13 PM

Am I being told that in order for a three letter prefix to be chosen for a thread title - 10 spaces have to be reserved for it?

You are being told that the space reserved for the prefix has to be the space that the longest prefix occupies.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:20 PM

Jon whatever I and our forum are being told - it is as clear as mud.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:21 PM

In the beginning, there were no prefixes and that was the time of the many uninformative thread titles.

Jim Dixon does a very good job in tracking all the newly added lyrics. His job would be much more difficult without the lyr add prefix. Several people are on record to have said they sometimes only load the threads with 'lyr' in the title line. I don't want the old MC times back in that respect even if someone thinks the use of prefixes puts us on the slippery slopes leading directly to the concentration camps.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 05 - 05:40 PM

You can call people names
And post only flames
Abusing is now - merely amusing
And they say around here
You can post without fear
But don't make your titles confusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 05:22 AM

This is strictly taboo
And the outcome for you
Is the change of your title by force
We will not falter
In leading horses to water
Even when drowning the horse.

For these days
We have our ways
Of making you do the right thing
Humans only need guiding
Not a damn good hiding
Moderation's a jolly good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 05:53 AM

The most prolific, and immoderate, poster of cut & paste nonsense on the site, talks about moderation.

Get with it mate. NOBODY cares what you think of the actions of Joe and the clones, except you.

For the rest of us, MAX's forum is running just fine.

That's the bottom line. WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 06:32 AM

You may have missed this editing comment inserted into an existing post and not refreshing this thread.

Roger, Roger, roger - the editing actions are not anonymous - I take the responsibility for ALL of them. If you want to blame somebody, blame me. I'm your personal scapegoat. And while thread name changes may be made without your permission, they are never, never made without your knowledge. Boy, do I know that for a fact....
-Joe Offer-

Our forum is fast becoming like a hospital where the only remedy for every problem - is surgery. No matter what the problem may be on our forum - the only solution from our volunteer fellow posters - is imposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 06:35 AM

No need to say thank you,
Me old merchant banker,
The king of the old cut and paste.
You do really well with the html,
But mostly your words are a waste

About one little item,
You rant ad infinitum,
And acres of bandwidth abuse.
You really should try, to ask yourself why,
Not many agree with your views.

Your raves and your rants,
Your cans and your can'ts,
Your ifs, and your ands, and your but,
Give me indigestion, leaving only one question.
Is he either half paste, or half cut?

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 06:44 AM

Usual procedures were followed. I reviewed the action, found it to be an unnecessary closing, and countermanded it. I didn't find out who did it and why until yesterday, but that's neither here nor there. I think that's all you need to know, and I fail to see how you could use additional information for anything other than causing a Big Stink about it. Big Stinks are usually counterproductive, not to mention the fact that they're downright unfriendly.
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps it can be explained what is so friendly and productive about the now usual procedure of anonymous volunteer fellow posters selectively judging and imposing their personal judgement upon the words of their fellow posters and of fellow posters intentionally witholding additional from our forum?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 08:48 AM

And on........and on....... and on.............Give us a break. We DON@T care.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 09:08 AM

BTW Roger,

Last time I looked, additional was an adjective, not a noun.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 09:09 AM

Don, I think he's pretty much shot his reputation with regards to honest, genuine concern with anyone who's been posting to or reading his crusade threads. If anyone disagrees and trusts him or what he says, you're free to disagree. Frankly, I'd be interested in posts from anyone who trusts him to represent their point of view.

Most people don't put quite so much effort into missing the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: JennyO
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 11:24 AM

$900 (bet you thought I'd forgotten ;-))

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 12:43 PM

HOSPITAL BULITIN
Usual procedures were followed. I reviewed the action, found it to be an unnecessary amputation, and countermanded it. I didn't find out who cut the patient's arm off and why until yesterday, but that's neither here nor there and they still have one good arm remaining. I think that's all you need to know, and I fail to see how you could use additional information for anything other than causing a Big Stink about it. Big Stinks are usually counterproductive, not to mention the fact that they're downright unfriendly

What's important here
I wish to make clear
Is although I can't put back the arm
Is that it could have been worse
It could have come off a nurse
That would have been cause for alarm

For the important thing now
Is not the why or the how
Or how we prevent it again
But how to convey
That everything is OK
And the fault is in those who complain

They may have lost some bits
But don't it get on your tits
When they want to know too
If it was taken with intent
Or simply just went
When really I haven't a clue

However it ends
We should shake hands as friends
I'm sure it will work out fine
Although shaking that hand
May not go as planned
It may all go better – next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 01:13 PM

Well, Wolfgang, I gotta tell you - the "Lyr Add" prefix for threads drives me crazy, and I've tried for years to get Max to remove it. Trouble is, with that tag on the thread, every message in the thread comes up on a search as an ADD. Jim and I try to tag messages with the song titles, and that's more helpful.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 01:33 PM

Joe, can't you UN-select "Re:" in a supersearch?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 05 - 02:54 PM

Hi, Jeri -
That won't work in our current configuration of SuperSearch, which searches just the message text. I'm sure Jeff could design something that searches just message titles.
If I ask for something like that, he usually seems to be able to come up with a perfect solution in about twenty minutes. The guy's phenomenal.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 07:22 AM

Most people don't put quite so much effort into missing the point.

Those who post almost as many times as they complain that I do - to refresh threads to only say they do not care - are perhaps the ones who are putting the most effort into missing the point?

Is the point something like - why worry as long as long as it always happens to someone else?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 08:07 AM

Awa an' bile yer heid ya wee nyaff, ye're like a christmas caird; ye're aye greetin'.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 08:30 AM

Good job I didn't mention the dirty knife

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 09:01 AM

I see Jeri's still lobbing insults. Predictable.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 06:13 PM

I'll do the deciding
Humans only need guiding
To do want I want them to do
Justifed by the means
The end - seen in my dreams
May become a nightmare to you

The point that some posters are appear to be putting so much effort into missing - is NOT if things like whether "informative thread titles" are desirable on our forum.

Things like this may well be thought to be desirable. But the point is - are these things now so desirable - to the extent of having them (rather selectively and anonymously) imposed?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 08:53 PM

Shambles 7:22 AM.

"Those who post almost as many times as I do - to refresh threads to only say they do not care - are perhaps the ones who are putting the most effort into missing the point".


At last, a direct answer in your own words. That's one small step towards understanding what is meant by debate. Well done.

What a pity that the response should be so factually inaccurate.

1. I do not post almost as often as you. It would take more time than I have left on this earth to post a significant fraction of your output on this subject.

2. I do not post simply to say I do not care. I post to point out the incontrovertible fact that the vast majority of members do not agree with you, and do not care if Joe and/or the clones make minor changes to titles, or edit out contentious, or repetitive contributions.

If this forum were a democratic institution along parliamentary lines, your supporters would assuredly lose their deposits.

As it is not a democracy, but the property of Max, your concerns are of little importance, the point which almost all of us have acknowledged, and which you have missed, or decided to ignore.

A sensible man will usually decide at some point to stop banging his head against a brick wall, if only to get rid of the headache.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Sep 05 - 09:02 PM

242 posts so far on this thread alone.

Shambles 71 posts (29.3% of total)

Don T 4 posts (1.65% of total)

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 06:02 AM

This is posted in the hope of a reasoned debate. However, I suspect and fear that - (always assuming that this thread is not first subject to any imposed editing action) - it will not be too long before posts containing only personal judgements will appear in this thread. I will ignore these, not respond in kind and try to debate the issue – hopefully other posters may also.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Sep 05 - 08:28 PM

Watching 'No Direction Home' tonight. There was footage of Bob Dylan being heckled on stage by some members of the audience. These noisy few presumably knew what to expect and would have payed for admission but were not apparently enjoying the performance.

However, they were still staying in their seats and repeatly shouting-out for Bob Dylan to 'get off', calling him names and noisely indulging in other such unfriendly banter. They seemed to think that there was something wrong with him trying to continue with his performance because it consisted of material that obviously was not to their personal taste. And they seemed to think this amounted to something of a betrayal - which gave them some right to try and shout-it down.

The rest of the audience did seem to be enjoying the performance (or may have quietly left) or were at least trying to listen to it. In any case the majority seemed to be happy for the performance to continue or were too polite to join in with the shouting-out of insults.

Despite these few audience members insisting on inflicting these poor manners on the majority - this poor example was not generally followed and - in the venue designed for this purpose - the show went on.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 05:11 AM

You're not comparing yourself to Dylan now are you Roger? My god man you're adding delusions of grandeur to paranoia now!
BTW as per your stated method of avoiding facing up to life by not answering abusive or judgmental posts, [nice way of not answering difficult questions]I do not expect or want, any response to this post.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 12:52 PM

When a poster starts a new thread and where there may already have been existing threads on a subject – they risk being judged by our anonymous volunteer fellow posters of needless duplication. The thread creation screen does rather suggest that re-opening any existing thread on the subject is the preferred one.

But if you then re-open older threads on this subject – you risk being judged by our anonymous volunteer fellow posters as 'flooding' our forum with old threads. This is assuming that you can refresh them and these threads have not been the subject of enforced or automatic closure – a fact that will usually not be established until the poster has scrolled all the way down to the submit box.

The result of either judgement by our (undoubtably well-intentioned) anonymous volunteer fellow posters is the same rather unfriendly approach – imposed editing action – without the poster's advanced knowledge or agreement. There is a risk of being damned - either way.

Many new posters who are not hardened to the skewed alternative reality that our forum now appears to be subject to - may decide that the safe course for them - and the only one certain not to result in them receiving accusations like them wasting precious bandwidth or being subject to many other personal judgements - is for them to decide not to post at all.

It would appear that the starting of new threads is not now the preferred option and the re-opening of older threads appears now to be the preferred one. In order to make this clear to our forum and encourage a consistent approach – perhaps it would be a good idea to ensure that all threads can remain open for new contributions - especially as our forum is now informed that the closing of threads presents no technical advantage to the efficient running of the site?

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 04:49 PM

Oh, no, Roger. Our editing is never unfriendly. We editors always keep a friendly, non-judgmental attitude. Please don't read unfriendliness into our editing. We're all as friendly as puppydogs.
-Joe Offer, Head Puppydog-

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 02:27 AM

Like many other things - that is perhaps not a matter for you to judge.

Many people are perfectly happy to do the kicking - some are even happy to see others being kicked. None of this makes kicking someone a very friendly thing to do.

Very few of us are happy when we are the ones being kicked.

Subject: RE: BS: Opening threads - a debate.
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 05:59 AM

Subject: RE: BBC2/PBS Sept 26 No Direction Home
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 28 Sep 05 - 12:36 PM

It is hard to remenber just how seriously things were taken back then.

A good example was the rather intense young man who was asking Bob Dylan about the deep meaning of the cover photo for Highway 61 and thought the choice of clothing for it - was of great significance.

Even when he was told by the man who should know - he was not prepared to accept the answer.

******************************************************************

LMAO!!!! PUH-LEEZE!!!!

Simply unbelievable...............

The irony in that post is so overwhelming that words to express it escape me. I can hardly wait for the next chapter in "The Pot Calls the Kettle Black."

Spaw