BS: For Fuck's Sake

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:50 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: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Sep 15 - 06:49 AM

Dave, are the goalposts being repositioned?

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: 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 - 06:29 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:51 AM

Told ya'!

GfS

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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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
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: 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 - 11:29 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: 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: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Sep 15 - 10:50 AM

Sue him.

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: 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 - 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: 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 - 06:07 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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.