BS: For Fuck's Sake

Subject: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 03:56 PM

Is there any subject we're allowed to discuss?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 03:58 PM

Folk music tends to go down quite well.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:07 PM

Yes, in the music section, I agree.
But in the BS section, what?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:13 PM

"To the primitive mind, everything is either friendly or hostile; but experience has shown that friendliness and hostility are not the conceptions by which the world is to be understood." 
― Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:20 PM

Why was my thread closed? Did it offend some USAian???

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:24 PM

I saw nothing in that thread that any reasonable, sensible person would close it for. Just a bunch of people batting thoughts back and forth.
What the hell is going on in some moderators' heads?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:27 PM

I quite agree, it's absolute nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:33 PM

Well we'll probably never know whether the thread was shut down by a high priest or a high priestess of the forum. Live with it. A shut thread is hardly ever worth moaning about. Forum clever clogs can always get round it. It wasn't a great idea anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:37 PM

It's the lack of an explanation that irritates me, Steve. In my working life, I managed many people and I made it a practice, whenever I had to enforce rules,mthat I explained what I was doing and why. It's the decent, civilised thing to do. You will never get respect if you treat adults like children.

---

Sorry, that doesn't work. If explanations are given it provides a catalyst for the arguers to then attack the moderator who made the decision and makes that moderator the subject instead of the flawed discussion that was truncated. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:40 PM

And I always ensured that those affected by rules knew what the bloody rules were.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: gnu
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:45 PM

I am shocked! The use of "'s" in the thread title is CLEARLY inappropriate. Either you use punctuation and grammar appropriately or I'll write a Dog damned letter! >;-)

Have fun.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:52 PM

I pride myself on my ability to spell, punctuate and write grammatically-correct English, gnu!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:52 PM

Unfortunately a sign of the times Bonzo.
I agree with your opening post but this idiocy permeates the whole of society.....god knows where it will all end......"gender deniers" there must be some protest group we could join to stop the fuckers?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 04:55 PM

Soon having kids will be a criminal offence.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:08 PM

Allow me to offer a humble solution. Why don't you Brits start your own forum where you all can call each other all the names you like, discuss all the inane topics you desire, complain about the moderation as much as you like, carry out all your personal battles to your hearts' content, etc., etc. and leave the rest of us in peace. FOR FUCKS' SAKE!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:15 PM

Just when Putin is being a nice bloke too!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:15 PM

There were none of those in the closed thread. Just a bunch of people throwing ideas around.

No-one has complained more than I have about 'A Certain Clique' who do those things and wreck threads, but nothing like that was going on in the closed thread - which is why I don't understand what the mods closed it for.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:20 PM

GUEST - presuming you are American ?

thank f@ck many of our USA mudcatters are decent sensible erudite witty fun loving folk..

they prove that not all yanks conform to the crude stereotype of belligerent pea brained isolationist armed to the teeth nut cases... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:21 PM

The thing is, we don't know if there were posts on that thread that have been deleted and if it was targeted by someone making it their business to ensure it was closed. We never will know but it is a possibility and, if that is the case, it may be difficult to be open about it. Still, I know what you mean :-(

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Joe_F
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:25 PM

What is "that thread", please?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Joe_F
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:28 PM

Oh. Now I see.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:31 PM

I don't. What thread?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:40 PM

"they prove that not all yanks conform to the crude stereotype of belligerent pea brained isolationist armed to the teeth nut cases... 😜"

You forgot the bit about them not getting our jokes.... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 05:59 PM

"The thing is, we don't know if there were posts on that thread that have been deleted and if it was targeted by someone making it their business to ensure it was closed. We never will know but it is a possibility and, if that is the case, it may be difficult to be open about it. Still, I know what you mean :-( "

Yes Dave, that's precisely why I've made the suggestion a number of times that, rather than deleting whole posts (thereby leaving no comprehensible 'audit trail' so that we mere mortals might understand what happened), or summarily closing threads without comment, it would be helpful if the metadata of deleted posts was left in place, but the body of the post deleted and replaced with 'Post Deleted By Mods', or similar wording.

I completely believe in the Mods having power to moderate, but I also believe that they should ensure that members understand what is going on when moderation takes place. Failing to do that is just low-grade moderation, perhaps even abuse of authority.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 06:00 PM

I thought about adding much more, but left off where I did
when I considered the possibility of a smart missile armed drone circling several miles above my house.... 😨

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 06:34 PM

I don't understand what the mods closed it for

If its any comfort, you have a lot of company.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 06:42 PM

I long ago gave up hope that the sensible trustworthy mods could still exercise any control
over their narrow minded trigger happy control freak team mates... 😣

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 06:46 PM

In general, threads are closed when they get out of control, when deleting individual messages won't settle things down. In extreme circumstances, threads get deleted.
But I can't figure out what thread you're talking about.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 06:55 PM

What kind of fuckery is this?
Amy Winehouse

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 06:55 PM

This one Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 07:02 PM

Joe, if we don't know that individual messages have been deleted, and certainly don't know why, how in the name of God do the Mods expect those deletions to 'settle things down'? You and I have had this conversation before - it's sloppy, lazy moderation, nothing more, nothing less.

In the thread in question, there is nothing untoward going on (except for one aggressive USA-Ian post which, I believe, everyone ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 07:05 PM

It's past midnight here, I have to be up early in the morning, I'm going to bed now. I'll be astonished if this thread's still here in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 07:08 PM

Now don't get me wrong. I often don't agree with what mods do to threads, but what I do know is that it is unreasonable to expect them to micromanage threads by deleting bits of posts and trying at the same time to leave the discussion still looking coherent. Don't worry, chaps. I'm not changing sides, I'm just sayin'!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 07:50 PM

OK, so it's the "Vital To Preserve Gender" thread. Was the closure capricious? If so, why?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 07:56 PM

Seems odd to me, despite my double-click post at the very end. It seemed quite good humoured, even if Bozo is a twot (which is, of course, the male of "twat").   Note to mods, I'd expect this to be within the bounds of normal humour by UK standards too.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 10:06 PM

Another dumb-ass thread by Bonzo3legs, one calculated to start a fight, was closed.

Yawn

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 10:32 PM

well actually the point about actresses was an interesting one. one season at Stratford they did an all male version of Marlowe's Faustus.

it was thought that the fact of Marlowe's sexuality would reveal different shades of meaning. the main thing i remember was Vincent Regan playing Helen of Troy.

also Fiona Shaw played the title role of Richard II made a great job of it.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 28 Sep 15 - 10:33 PM

I take a slightly more charitable view of our buffoonish old adversary bonzo...

some folks need to learn the difference between 'starting a fight'
and 'starting a tongue in cheek exchange of politically cartoonish contentious pantomime piss take banter'...

.. of course I could be entirely wrong..

and bonz could actually be the outrageously obnoxious clueless right wing antagonist he portrays himself to be..


Besides which... bonz plays electric guitar and likes classic 60s rock..

see.. I like to seek conciliatory common ground with entrenched opposing enemies... 😫

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: michaelr
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 12:16 AM

Yeah, pfr, I get that. But the moderator(s) in this case don't. Waddayagonnado?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 12:31 AM

Waddamagonnado?...

eff all really... just enjoy the absurdity of it all... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 02:34 AM

The problem is, we don't know why the thread was closed.

If your child misbehaves, you don't just punish him/her with no explanation, do you? Surely you tell the child why he/she is being punished - punishment without an explanation of the reason is meaningless and serves only to breed anger and resentment in the punishee.

If, as has been suggested, the Mods were pissed off with the OP (or anyone else who has transgressed their secret rules that mere mortals like us aren't allowed to know), wouldn't it make more sense to block further posts from him/them and, so long as the thread remains reasonably good-humoured, allow everyone else to continue to contribute?

Anyhow, after a good night's sleep, I've resigned myself to the notion that 'none are so deaf as they who will not hear'. I've got a dog to walk and a song to write, time to leave...

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 02:42 AM

Anyway, "sun's fair blazin' innit!!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 02:42 AM

But, before I go, one last thing - Joe, what's 'capricious' is a set of 'club rules' that the members are forbidden to know, and the deletion of posts and closure of threads without editorial comment. You know it, I know it - it's counter-productive if you want lively, civilised discussion and, after all, isn't that what a forum is supposed to be all about.

Now...gone.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Bert
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 03:27 AM

Bonzo3legs, I have no idea why your thread was closed or who did it. Joe may be able to find out. It seemed to me to be quite a reasonable discussion.

I have fought for years for some degree of openness in Mudcat moderation. I personally think that it is underhand, sneaky and downright dishonest to moderate any thread without saying, why and who did it.

Every deleted message or closed thread should be accompanied by and explanation and the name of the moderator. Anything else should be unacceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Megan L
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 03:32 AM

Jings have heard less moans frae a set o bag piped than you lot o moaning Minnie's. You do not own the site if you don't like how it is run no one is forcing you to stay.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Bert
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 03:48 AM

Now, now, Megan L, If I were to go and delete your message, without any explanation, do you think that it would be fair? No of course it wouldn't. There is nothing wrong with your opinion except that I don't agree with it.

But that would not be a fair reason for me to delete it. And if I were to delete it, don't you think that it would be reasonable for me to give an explanation?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 03:56 AM

In defence of the mods, there has been so much trouble here over the last few years, that admin cant be expected to give rhyme and reason for EVERY deletion, some are self explanatory.
Regarding Bonzo's thread, probably the mod who deleted it thought that it was a "trolling" thread and decided to remove it before it became nasty.

Alternatively it is possible that the sentiments expressed angered the mod and they used their "veto"........we all make mistakes move on.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Megan L
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 04:40 AM

Bert if you owned the site or were a moderator for the site and deemed my post a candidate for deletion you would do so.

I might scratch my head for a moment and think about what I might have done wrong,but it would have been your decision to make and whether or not I agreed, provided the site was not doing something dangerous I would accept the decision and get on with my day. Life is short far better to keep it sweet.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 04:55 AM

[Notes to self:] Not my gig. Not real life. Post vanishes? Lessee. Short post, who cares? Middling post, mildly cross. Long post, less mildly cross. Keep crossness to self. Hope remembered to copy. Revisit later. Expect mods to explain every move apropos of every troll? Don't be such an arrogant git, Shaw!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,Ian
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 05:17 AM

Can the mod not put a note on the post expressing concern and saying it is at risk of deletion if the problems continue.

I frequent a football forum. On there from time to time a mod will delete a post and leave a note eg post deleted for unacceptable content.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 05:36 AM

A lot of you are protesting far too much. The forum is what it is. Nearly every time something is deleted or locked, I don't agree with what's been done. Big deal. I didn't set it up and I don't help to run it. There'll always be another day.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 06:07 AM

"The things we never challenge
Are the things that never change"

James Keelaghan - "Turn of The Wheel".

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 06:11 AM

I hope you're not implying that I'm a goody-goody who never challenges things! It's just that I try to be selective as to what's worth wasting my energy on. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 06:23 AM

Of course not, Steve. But we all have our pet issues, and unprofessional moderation of Internet forums is one of mine! 👍😎

Now I have to expend some energy -I have two bathrooms and two bedrooms to clean before The Memsahib gets home from The Netherlands tonight! 😜

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 08:19 AM

I note that very few of you "challenged" the libellous and abusive posts that I received for years from "Team Musket"

Only my political "enemies" Mr T and Keith had the balls.
I also thank Hilo, Michael Pete. and a nice mod.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 08:35 AM

Not getting involved in that debate, Ake. As we don't know you, neither do we know if there was any truth in the things they were saying, most (all?) of the rest of us have no knowledge whether they were 'libellous' or not.

One plain and inescapable fact is that none of you bunch of squabbling schoolboys came out of that debacle with clean hands, nor with any real credit. And it's the squabbling by you and your fellow keyboard-warriors that brought about the situation we have here now, where secret rules mean that Mods feel justified in closing threads arbitrarily, without any attempt to explain their decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 10:50 AM

Sue him.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 11:02 AM

I have stated on a very regular basis that any genuine libel should be removed. I have always qualified that with the fact that, without legal intervention, none of us know what is libellous or not. At this point it is just heresay and denial. Libel is not proven simply by saying it is so. Sorry, but that is just the way of the world and unless backed up with legal evidence no claim of libel is valid.

Please note that I am not saying that I believe or disbelieve anything that anyone says on here. Most people can form their own opinions as to what is true and what is not and, provided those who you care for and those who care for you know the truth, the musings of complete strangers on here are pretty insignificant.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 11:29 AM

Sounds like weasel words to me. You seem to be willing to entertain the possibility that someone could be guilty of any accusation made against them without the slightest bit of evidence being put forth by the accuser. I would ask the accuser what evidence he has for his accusation and if he fails to provide it I would call him a liar.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 11:48 AM

I find it hilarious the way the omniphobes stick together.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 11:50 AM

I find it hilarious the way the omniphobes stick together.

As do the puerile name callers.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,Sol
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 12:02 PM



Agreed. Seems like the most likely explanation. Having just read through the 'offending' thread, I thought everyone expressed a reasonable point of view. Who knows? Maybe I missed something.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,Sol
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 12:05 PM

The above post by me was referring the part of Akenaton's post below.

Akenaton said: Alternatively it is possible that the sentiments expressed angered the mod and they used their "veto"........we all make mistakes move on.-

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 12:52 PM

noticed "Piggate" thread has just been closed - I don't have a problem with mods closing that...

The reason is quite apparent.


the thread was amusing to start with,
but I just wasted a good few minutes wading through the usual tedious repetitive conceited childish tit for tat
that had inevitably taken over...

.. sadly, it's like having to put up with an intelligent educated boring old man
now suffering OCD and early stage Alzheimer's.........

.. and I'm not joking...😣

[first the wife's mother, now mine.. 10 years of becoming familiar with the classic synptoms...]

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 02:21 PM

Me: "Please note that I am not saying that I believe or disbelieve anything that anyone says on here.

Guest 11:29 AM: "You seem to be willing to entertain the possibility that someone could be guilty of any accusation made against them without the slightest bit of evidence being put forth by the accuser."

Which bit of neither believing or disbelieving anything on here do you not understand? I am willing to entertain the principle that either one person is lying and another is telling the truth or that both parties are telling part of the truth. I have no idea if any party is being dishonest or which scenario is occurring. If you make your mind up with no further evidence you are an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 02:35 PM

...and I agree entirely PFR. Which is why I left and went for a beer. Far more enjoyable :-) Naylors Velvet for anyone who is interested!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,Sol
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 04:32 PM

Roses are red, violets are blue
Why my posts were deleted, I haven't a clue.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 05:52 PM

I have no idea if any party is being dishonest

If someone accuses another without offering evidence it is obvious who is being dishonest. Like I said weasel words. It's clear what you are trying to do here.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 08:27 PM

The mods USED to explain moderation issues a lot more.... it led to more threads debating and complaining about the explanations.
And occasionally, a thread is reopened....

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 08:49 PM

Someone above doesn't know what "weasel words" means. And Bill is right. As this is not our gig, no-one is owed an explanation. It's nice to get one, but, though the mods can be complete arses at times, I fully get why they don't give said explanations. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 08:57 PM

Might as well repeat something I said in recent years..

Before I even knew mudcat existed,
I was one of the older members of a music technology forum
that got shut down suddenly by the the internet digital rights cops....

It was run by young music students and teenage software sharers..

The modding was firm, fair, transparent, and far more reasonable and consistent than mudcat..

They were young inexperienced idealistic kids.
The mods here are certainly old enough to know and do better...????? 😕

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 10:58 PM

When it becomes a thread about the moderators and their moderating decisions, it gets closed. This looks like another short-timer.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 12:51 AM

Told ya'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: michaelr
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 01:01 AM

Meta-mucil! Not allowed!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 01:13 AM

...a little rich for ya', eh?...can't stomach it??

Grinning,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 01:30 AM

You don't half talk though your arse, Guest,05:52.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 03:47 AM

GUEST is perfectly correct it is cowardly and criminal to accuse other members of heinous crimes without any evidence and in the face of an outright denial by the accused.

Do you think the accused person should be forced to disprove such a claim?
You are wrong Dave and you bloody well know you are wrong, if you do not, you really shouldn't be be contributing here.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 04:11 AM

Yes.
Too much use of unsupported accusations.
Resorting to smearing in place of debate.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 05:19 AM

Do you think the accused person should be forced to disprove such a claim?

No I don't. Try to get your head round the phrase I am not saying that I believe or disbelieve anything that anyone says on here. I do not believe any scurrilous claims here or elsewhere but if I do not know the background I cannot dismiss it out of hand either. And please do not try to shut down the debate by telling anyone who should be contributing or not. As this discussion seems to be about moderation policy I thought that you would have realised it is not your place to do so.

As to it being criminal. If so, only legal action will rectify it. If no legal action is forthcoming I can only assume that it is not a criminal, or illegal, act. If it is not criminal, it is a false accusation to say it is.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 05:20 AM

BTW - The time is nigh for thread closure. The pattern has become obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 06:29 AM

Dave, no one cares if you believe an unsupported accusation or not.
The issue is whether it is acceptable to post them.

I think people only resort to smears when they have nothing to say on the subject.
That is not acceptable in debate.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 06:38 AM

Neither is your tiresome hectoring, which YOU resort to when you have nothing to say. Sadly, it means you resort to said hectoring at extremely frequent intervals.

And, before you even ask, no I bloody won't. Hector away.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 06:45 AM

We have just seen your hectoring drive a decent person from Mudcat.
How many others?
I will take no lectures on hectoring from you.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 06:49 AM

Dave, are the goalposts being repositioned?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 06:50 AM

You are now trying to define rules of debate on Mudcat. Whether I agree or not is not the issue and, at the risk of repeating what was said just up the thread, this is not your gig. Acceptable behaviour on a Mudcat debate is whatever the forum management decide it is. If posts are deleted without explanation, either live with it or complain to them. If a thread is closed, tough. If a thread is deleted altogether, it is probably for a good reason. I think most of the recent moderation has been due to circular arguments leading the thread nowhere. It gets to a certain point that it becomes obvious no benefit can be gained. At that point I suggest it is time for a beer while the moderation team may well choose to put it out of it's misery. In both cases the world becomes a better place :-)

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 06:51 AM

"As this is not our gig, no-one is owed an explanation. It's nice to get one, but, though the mods can be complete arses at times, I fully get why they don't give said explanations."

Then perhaps you can explain it to me, Steve - by PM if you think it makes more sense - because I sure as hell don't get it.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 06:53 AM

I think a different game has been started, Raggy ;-)

Who has been driven from Mudcat by Steve? Is it a confirmed fact or just an allegation at this stage?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 06:56 AM

... as Dave says... "The pattern has become obvious."




Symptoms of Fucking Up Mudcat Threads Syndrome


"People with OCD are known to obsessively dissect their relationships with friends, coworkers, romantic partners, and family members. For example, they may dwell at length on whether an offhand comment at work alienated a coworker, or whether a small misunderstanding ruined a romantic relationship. This mind-set may reflect an exaggerated sense of responsibility and difficulty accepting uncertainty."

check


"Paranoid personality disorder (PPD): This is a condition associated with excessive suspicion and distrust of others, to the extent that they interfere with social, occupational, or other areas of functioning. Those with paranoid personality disorder are highly prone to experience delusions of persecution."


check

"Lack of Empathy
Lack of empathy is thought to be a large component of antisocial personality disorder, states AllPsych Online. An individual who lacks empathy is incapable of understanding how others feel. The individual may be oblivious to the feelings or concerns of other people. Her inability to empathize with others makes it easy for her to use deceit and charm to manipulate others.

Other Signs
A sociopath may see the world as ruined or "crazy" instead of himself. This makes treatment difficult, because he has no insight into how his behaviors affect others. This individual is not going to seek therapy and will not be cooperative if loved ones suggest treatment. This is because of his inability to understand his behavior as inappropriate. A sociopath may try to intimidate others when his charm is not effective in getting what he wants. Any relationships with a sociopath may be unstable because of the individual's ability to fake kindness temporarily and become agitated and hurtful when things don't go his way."

check....... 😣

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 07:30 AM

at least one over prolific mudcat poster displays distinct traits of personality disorders & issues
which should be of concern to friends and family.

An ambitious social / clinical psychologist could publish a career making paper on mudcat... 😬

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 07:46 AM

Just one question, what is an "omniphobe", is it an insult or a compliment?
I have a fear and loathing of head chopping, live pilot incinerating, Christian murdering, Muslim fanatics....does that make me a bad person?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 07:50 AM

An ambitious social / clinical psychologist could publish a career making paper on mudcat

You know, PFR, I have often mused whether Mudcat is in itself a social experiment set up by Max to study just that! I also wonder whether some of the characters are actually real of if Max throws them on for effect. But then I realise that you could not make up most of the shit on here :-)

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 08:42 AM

yeah.....

I like the title of this thread "For Fuck's Sake"

It succinctly denotes raw exasperation with both inconsistent erratic arbitrary modding;
and the selfish narcissistic social inadequates who relentlessly ruin any interesting discussions & threads.......... 😠

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 08:46 AM

Dave,
Who has been driven from Mudcat by Steve? Is it a confirmed fact or just an allegation at this stage?

Long standing member olddude, on his "Bugs" thread last week.
I do not make unsupported accusations.

You are now trying to define rules of debate on Mudcat.

I am not.
We are all entitled to an opinion on what is acceptable.
I think it unacceptable to resort to smearing other members.
You defend it?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 09:02 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Bugs!!!!
From: GUEST,Olddude - PM
Date: 21 Sep 15 - 07:37 PM

What a piece of shit you are shaw, pay me a visit Please and we can discuss manners. And spaw was one of my best friends. He would nothhave pissed on your head if your hair was on fire you troll

(3 minutes later)

I won't waste any more time here so delete my account, don't need to talk to ass wipes,Olddude - PM

(Next day)

My apologies to the good people I
KKnow on this forum for the outburst. I forget that is has been taken over by the haters and will refrain from posting again. You all know how to contact me. Sadly mudcat has turned into a place that I don't like to visit again. Be well

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 09:14 AM

Can anyone confirm that Guest,Oldude is the same as member oldude? Only the mods I expect and I don't think they will get involved somehow. As well you know, Keith, anyone can post under someone else's name as a Guest.

And no, I am not defending anything. Just saying that I do not know the whole story and will defer judgement until I do. You are indeed entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to reject it.

Like a spiral in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning. on an ever spinning reel...

Is it beer o'clock yet?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 09:31 AM

What a fucking weasel!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 09:36 AM

Beer sounds good Dave. Time of a pint of the black stuff methinks.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 09:37 AM

yeah.....

I like the title of this thread "For Fuck's Sake"

It succinctly denotes raw exasperation with both inconsistent erratic arbitrary modding;
and the selfish narcissistic social inadequates who relentlessly ruin any interesting discussions & threads.......... 😠

Spot on, pfr- you got it!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 09:42 AM

Alliteration - fucking ferret.. wanking weasel.. sodomising stoat.. mingemunching mink..

[otters, martens, polecats - if any one else wants to have a go..]

what a filthy depraved bunch of mustelids...

ps.. I bagsy "The Wank Weasels" as a folk band name...

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 09:51 AM

Oralsexing Otters? Masturbating Martins? Pissing Polecats?

filthy depraved bunch of mustelids doesn't alliterate at all. I was disappointed by that one :-)

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 09:52 AM

Damn! Forgot to change hands.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 09:56 AM

oh.. I dropped out of alliteration - that bit was me being serious..

the filthy furry ferile fuckers !!! 😜

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 10:00 AM

oh.. and I shouldn't really in view of the sensitive controversial local culls...

but wot the'eck.... buggering badgers....

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 10:13 AM

In the scheme of things why take it personally?

If they were your dying words maybe deleting them is evil but dying words are usually "oh crap shit for fuck's sake" or "uggug".

Mods too have delusional self absorbed moments of misinterpretation or the ear of a chronic complainer.

Its not like democracy and the constitution have been hacked and raped to death. That is already the ambition of ego maniacal fascists.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 10:42 AM

I want my dying words to be "My round I think..." :-D

Copulating Coypus?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 10:47 AM

2 or 3 decades from now I'd like mine to be

"Nurse what lovely breasts.. may I feeeeeeelrrrruughh" 😜

[inspired by the death scene in the 1970s BBC series "Casanova" - well inspired me when I was a schoolboy]

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 11:39 AM

""Indifference to me, is the epitome of all evil.""
― Elie Wiesel

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 11:40 AM

""I'm an 'intelligent' sociopath. I don't have problems with drugs, I don't commit crimes, I don't take pleasure in hurting people, and I don't typically have relationship problems. I do have a complete lack of empathy. But I consider that an advantage, most of the time. Do I know the difference between right and wrong, and do I want to be good? Sure. ... A peaceful and orderly world is a more comfortable world for me to live in. So do I avoid breaking the law because it's 'right'? No, I avoid breaking the law because it makes sense.""
― M.E. Thomas, Confessions of a Sociopath: A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 11:44 AM

Backwoodsman, as it see it there are several reasons why moderators will not usually provide explanations for individual deletions. First, there aren't enough of them to keep up with the forum ratbags. Second, they are volunteers, not forum careerists. Third, and most importantly, when they do give their reasons they get drawn into meta-squabbles with those who take umbrage with them and this ends up in exchanges of long PMs as well as a load of pointless back-and-forth on the forum. Life's too short as it is. There's a lot I don't get about the attitude of mods here at times, but I do get that much. I mean, how important is it really if your post gets trashed? I've had tons of mine consigned to the bin but I just shrug and get on with life. Best bet.

And Keith, we've been here before, haven't we. Stop being ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 01:56 PM

Can anyone confirm that Guest,Oldude is the same as member oldude?

He posted to that thread as a member until he resigned his membership.
There is no question it was him.
Desperate ploy failed Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 02:21 PM

I can understand all that Steve, but my complaint was about one of them closing a perfectly goo, and good-humoured thread.

But you're right - there's a pub-full of people (including a Musket) waiting for me to join them in musicke and song. Much more fun than trying to understand anonymous Americans here! 👍😎

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 02:52 PM

Like I said, they work in mysterious and occasionally disagreeable ways, but any sense of proportion I still retain tells me that an Internet forum is (a) not my gig, (b) not real life! Well, it's not my real life anyway...

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 03:45 PM

And Keith...Stop being ridiculous.

Good luck with that, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 03:55 PM

He posted to that thread as a member until he resigned his membership. There is no question it was him.

Yes there is. I just questioned it. There is no such resignation of membership in place. Log out if you like but your account and all your postings remain in place.

Desperate ploy failed Dave.

No ploy, desperate or otherwise. What ploy do you think it is Keith? Do you have any proof of anything or is this yet another scurrilous claim?
Getting exceedingly tedious now anyway. Think I will call it a day. Accordion practice first, then beer.

Any odds on the thread remaining open until morning in England?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 03:55 PM

Just a correction Olddude posted to the Bugs thread both as a member AND as a Guest. Presuming of course it was the same person posting.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 03:59 PM

Keith needs another more productive hobby... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 04:31 PM

Keith also is in desperate need of a brain. " Just Sayin' "

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 05:00 PM

A lot of USAians aren't wankers!

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 06:33 PM

I tend to avoid commenting about old killed threads, but let me just say this about the "Bugs!" thread. Along with a good number of other posters, the idea of butterflies being released at a wedding, then chased and stamped on by a child, did not appeal to me, and I said so. I thought that's what discussion forums were for. I've reviewed my posts on that thread and I found they were a mixture of quite gentle demurral, information about butterflies and a touch of whimsy here and there. I did not abuse OldDude, though I can't say the same about his behaviour towards me. No problem there, however. Keith, not just in this thread either, appears to be fixated on his notion that I drove this old-timer away from this board. All I can say to that is that I invite anyone here who's tempted to agree with him to take a good look at that thread, top to bottom. Dan made a pretty bad call in starting that thread, misjudging the likely mood of many members here. Yes, embarrassing. But not terminal, unless he himself decided it needed to be terminal.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 06:57 PM

" Keith, not just in this thread either, appears to be fixated on his notion........."



If mudcat is a microcosm / bedlam.....


Keith - The petty nit picking shit stirring vindictive tit for tat bickering behaviour of yourself and some other senior citizens here

really puts me serious fear for my sanity if I ever end up incarcerated in an old folks home... 😱

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 07:22 PM

Oi, we're too bloody old to hang in to any notion of sanity,...

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 07:23 PM

Hang on. The sane do not use iPads.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 07:37 PM

iPads or sanity towels...????? 😈

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 07:50 PM

Talking of cranky old codgers...

just watched this:

Piers Morgan chats to John Lydon - aka Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols - about his controversial rise to fame
in the band that sent shock waves through the nation.

still available to watch on ITV catchup....

Mr Rotten is just a couple of years older than me... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 02:36 AM

Is that Johnny Rotten?

No! I have only used it 3 times...

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 02:57 AM

BTW - I read Terry Pratchett's last novel "The Shepherd's Crown" over the last couple of days. I was reminded of a concept that popped up in an earlier book, Pig Boring.

Can't think why it reminded me of something...

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 03:48 AM

Keith, not just in this thread either, appears to be fixated on his notion that I drove this old-timer away from this board.

Not my notion.
Olddude said it himself.
And it was him. If an imposter started using his name on his thread, he would have noticed and the mods would have deleted the imposter.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,Oldude
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 03:56 AM

Would they?

:D

---

This message was posted by Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 04:42 AM

same old gang going -not me guv

Old Dude is a loss to this forum.

he was gentle and creative - god alone knows what you said to produce that reaction.   however having been on the end of that noxious abuse, i can imagine.

well done lads.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 04:51 AM

god alone knows what you said to produce that reaction.

Not god alone, Al. The many people who read the thread. All you have to do is put 'bugs' in the filter box and change the search to 30 days to see it yourself. In fact, to save you having to do it, here is a link. You will see that all Steve says on 30 Sep 15 at 06:33 PM is true. looks very much to me like someone storming off in a huff because they have no real argument. Sound familiar?

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 06:29 AM

It was not the discussion that drove Olddude off, but Steve's hectoring belligerent aggression.

I also posted disapprovingly of the child's behaviour, but my style is different.

I raised this issue here only because Steve actually accused me of being "hectoring!"

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 06:37 AM

Have you spoken to oldude, do you truthfully know the reason he has decided to refrain from posting or are you making assumptions.

I would suggest the latter.

I would further suggest that all you are trying to do is ferment an argument.


Again.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 06:57 AM

Rag, I only know what he said.
See my post 30 Sep 15 - 09:02 AM

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 06:58 AM

read the thread once again its about you being sensitive caring decent people and the rest of u being a bunch of cunts.

one of these days you should forget the mote in other peoples eyes - remove the plank from your own, and the shove it up your bum.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 07:13 AM

Yes I saw that. I also saw that Steve Shaw at no time made any adverse reference to Spaw which seemed to be the thing that upset Oldude

The references to Spaw initially came from Oldude himself, MGM Lion, Gnu and Oldude again.

Steve's only reference to him is to state he never mentioned him.

If that is what upset Oldude it was not Steve's doing and thus your attack on him is unjustified.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 07:27 AM

There's a group of pages on Facebook called 'Parking Like A Twat In {place name}.
There should be one called 'Behaving Like A Twat On Mudcat'.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE, SOMEONE PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 07:46 AM

read the thread once again its about you being sensitive caring decent people and the rest of u being a bunch of cunts.

Seeing as I did not post to the thread in question I have no axe to grind here but, in my opinion, there was a lot of nastiness on the thread. None of it was from Steve so I am not sure what relevance the above comment has. Who should be shoving what up their bums, Al?

But, after all that, BWM, I agree. Your thread, your call. May I suggest you PM one of the mods as I think they may be reluctant to do so considering your earlier remarks on moderation policy.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,Sol
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 07:46 AM

Is this thread a stolen script from East Enders or Constipation Street? Just wondered. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 07:50 AM

No, Sol. I said earlier you couldn't make this shit up :-)

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 07:54 AM

read the thread once again its about you being sensitive caring decent people and the rest of u being a bunch of cunts.

Big Al neatly sums up not only the posts in that thread but the attitude manifested in the majority of that tosser and his mates' posts.

Well done Al.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 08:00 AM

Guest neatly sums up the attitude that an anonymity allows him to do what he likes with no fear being found out.

Well done Mudcat
(for giving people with no backbone the perfect stage)

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 08:49 AM

"Raggytash - I would further suggest that all you are trying to do is ferment an argument. "

Being objective - what is an observable and testable 'truth',
is that keith is an obsessive shit stirrer who seems to have a pathological need to 'ferment argument' ad infinitum............

It does seem rather pathetic, a grown 'mature' adult persistently acting like a primary school classroom 'sneak'.

Teacher's goody-two-shoes, provoking other kid's into fights to get them into trouble,
telling tales to get them into trouble,
accusing other kids of being bullies to get them into trouble,
playing the wounded innocent victim if they react and push back,
to get them into trouble...ect.. etc..

I think you should get the drift....



Whatever your 'need' is keith, you should be embarrassed and ashamed for acting like a prissy 6 year old............ 😣

I see more threads ruined and ended by you and your petty childish arguing
than probably any other mudcatter....???

What is a shame, is that on rare occasions you can display insight and wisdom,
and make seriously good points in a debate....

But you are your own worst enemy, constantly acting like a pernicious distracting disruptive twat.....

please have a rethink.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 08:52 AM

He's one of the leaders, but there are others who need to grow the fuck up and stop reacting to the fucking idiot.

For fuck's sake...

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 09:01 AM

To quote the technical term, the fucking fuckers fucked...

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 09:26 AM

Your quite correct Backwoodman, but it's like a scab I tell myself not to pick it but still do so. Promise I'll try to stop.

Subject: RE: BS: For Fuck's Sake
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 15 - 09:34 AM

""When someone puts an end to something, it doesn't mean that he gave up, it means that thing is not taking him anywhere.""
― Michael Bassey Johnson