Censored Thread

Subject: Censored Thread
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 12:56 AM

There was a thread today that explored the flaws of Mudcat too deeply, and some unfortunate information was revealed. I deleted the thread entirely, instead of trying to selectively delete certain messages that might be harmful. I'll e-mail a copy of the thread to Max and let him decide what to do with it, because I'll be away from my computer for most of the holidays.
The thread turned into a discussion of the security flaws that Mudcat has had in the past, and that it might have currently. We try to keep Mudcat reasonably safe and secure, but we do have flaws. I'm sorry, but I don't think it's a good idea for us to allow those flaws to be revealed to the public.
As soon as we discover flaws, we do our best to resolve them. I saw the thread as harmful to the security of Mudcat, and several other people messaged me privately to say that they agreed with me. I realize that not everyone will agree with my decision to delete the thread, but I gave it my best shot. That's all I can do.

If you wish to discuss questions about the security of Mudcat, please contact any of us privately at the following e-mail addresses:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 03:13 AM

Well, Joe, looks like ya done the right thing. Kinda like a national dee-fense thing, ya know?

I am sure you'll find some contrary perspectives offered, though. But it was a judgement call to make and you made it, and we all know it cuz you had the temerity to record the fact!!

A

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Mr Red
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 08:22 AM

Right on
we don't want people knowing out real names
Yours, Mr Scarlet (oh what a giveaway........)

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 09:18 AM

GOOD CALL.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Tweed
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 10:21 AM

Just do it, Joe Offer. I don't see any reason why you ought to even have to explain yourself on that one.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 10:45 AM

All I can say is that, by my standards, you made the only good decision there was.

If anyone has issue with it, you can always remind them that the internet is not some equivalent to a constitutional republic, and we are *not* guaranteed the right to completely unhindered free speech (Hell, we don't even really have that IN the Consitutional Republic of the USA...anyone who has threatened the Presidents life can attest to that).

And if'n anyone doesn't like the "censorship", they can always go build their own website message board and post whatever their heart desires.

Count me as another vote in favour.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jeep man
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 11:19 AM

OK JOE.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: wildlone
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 11:56 AM

Good for you joe.
dave

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Dani
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 12:11 PM

I always defer to Joe's wisdom in matters of security and freedom.

You oughta run for something, Joe!

Dani

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 12:31 PM

You're crazy if you don't.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Mooh
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 12:47 PM

Joe,

The greater good, always. Thanks for watching over us. Merry Christmas!

Mooh.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 12:48 PM

Joe, you da man, and like everybody else, I accept any decision you make. I mean, I regard it as a privilege to be here, not a right.

But, would it not have been possible simply to delete Jon Freeman's message from the thread, with a note of explanation ? Maybe it isn't possuble to delete single messages from threads, what do I know?

I am strongly tempted to make a smart-ass and triumphant comment on your own choice of the word "censored" in this thread title instead of "deleted", for the benefit of another Mudcatter (she knows who she is) who took me to task on the censored thread for not knowing the difference between censorship and prudent management, but since it's Christmas time and I have become a nice person once again, I will desist.

Murray Murray

---

Actually, Murray, the title of this thread refers not to MY censorship, but to the name of the thread I deleted (YOU started the thread as "Censored Political Thread" and gave it the name). I thought of deleting Jon's message only, but there were a number of other messages that made reference to what Jon said or repeated what he said. I thought selective deletion was more "censorship" than deleting the entire thread without making my personal judgment of each message, so I chose to delete the thread. Jon is a good man, and he seems to think he is doing Mudcat a favor by revealing our secrets. He thinks this will force us to tighten our security. We really try to a do the best we can, but it won't help anybody if Jon keeps finding new flaws and broadcasting them to the world. Those of you who are friends of Jon, please contact him and let him know what you think. -Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 03:30 PM

All in favour of your actions, but it would be interesting to know just what percentage of 'catters automatically read a thread headed "Censored" as it already has more posts than some get !

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: fat B****rd
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 03:35 PM

I agree with everybody above.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 04:29 PM

Vote of confidence to Joe.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: marty D
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 04:34 PM

GUEST, probably a fair number of us read a thread titled 'censored' and probably quite a few marvel at the amount of spare time some people have so close to Christmas. To use that time simply to cause consternation at Mudcat seems so sad. Way to go Joe. I don't know why you even bother with the hassles, but you're obviously appreciated by the vast majority. Have a well deserved Christmas.

marty

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 04:48 PM

Good for you!

My experience is your judgement is sound and your actions are legitimate!

CB

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 06:36 PM

Bravo, Joe!

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: PaulM
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 07:35 PM

A question:

How many of you who are sycophantically supporting Joe's position, actually saw / read the thread?

Jon Freeman made some valid points about how the security of the Mudcat was flawed in the past. He expressed a deal of frustration that he was unable to persuade Max and Joe to implement sensible safeguards.

NOTHING that he said compromises current mudcat security.

It is however a little critical about Joe Offer, maybe that's why it's gone.

I've got the original thread cached, so if you want to see what the (non) fuss is about, I'll mail you a copy

[e-mail]

Paul

---

I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, Paul. People who have been around here for a while have learned to trust me, and they know I don't censor things because they make me look bad. In fact, I am very reluctant to censor anything. Certainly, Jon made valid points. He is an excellent programmer, and he is a good person. However, I think his public disclosure of Mudcat technical information presents a serious risk to Mudcat. There have been flaws in the security of Mudcat. Usually they have been fixed as soon as we could come up with a solution to them. Sometimes, we did not fix the problem exactly as Jon specified, and most of the time we did not reveal to him what we did. Jon's messages serve to publish our weaknesses so that others can do us harm before we have a chance to fix the problem. They also serve to damage the trust people have in Mudcat, by making problems seem much more serious than they were. I suppose Mudcat would be more secure if we made it a closed, members-only Forum. Certainly, that would be more secure - but at what price? We want to remain open to anyone who wants to talk about folk music. That does involve a risk. It is my opinion that Jon's statements make that risk greater, and I ask him to please stop. I'm at a disadvantage here because I simply cannot reveal every personal and technical matter I know something about. Take my word - it's time for Jon to stop. -Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: mooman
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 07:49 PM

I trust Joe on this one Paul as he has consistently tried to keep censoring to a minimum, deleted personal attacks on 'Catters and tried to safeguard Mudcat security as far as possible. As someone responsible for security of a website myself I believe he did the right thing.

Keep up the good work Joe!

mooman

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 08:36 PM

Happy Christmas Joe. And others. Most others. Hell, all others. Even the bloody trolls.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Banjer
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 09:00 PM

I read the post and saw some URL info that had I really had the inquisitiveness to access the admin portion of mudcat I would have tried. I think Joe made the right call here. It seems to me that if we all scrutinized our elected officials as much as some do our volunteer administrators, there would be less problems in our country. Carry on, Joe....

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 09:14 PM

And lest there be any misunderstanding, my concern was that Jon implied that all of our personal messages might be able to be seen by others than whom they should. Joe finally got around to answering that that is not the case, that only he, Jeff and Max can access our personal pages and that is only done when it is absolutely necessary. Had those questions been answered immediately, the thread wouldn't have got to where it did.

As to the threats to security, I never saw them. What I saw was that this site, like many others, has flaws. When they are discovered, they are fixed. In fact, given that this is an all volunteer site, I would say that is done very well.

And finally, no one was attacking Joe, especially for the job he is doing. There was a question raised by a very irresponsible post. Once the question is raised, the way to put it to bed is to just answer it. The way to cause considerable turmoil is to act like someone is out or order for asking that which has been laid in front of them. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. I am glad that it is over.

Mick

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Sorcha
Date: 23 Dec 01 - 09:16 PM

Thank you Mick. 'Nuff said.

Subject: Mudcat security
From: GUEST,Hacky Sack
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 08:56 AM

What Joe may not want you to know is that Mudcat is not a very secure site. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of computer hacking has access to your registration information, your Mudcat password and your "personal" messages.

Sites with much higher levels of security, think of Amazon.com or CNN.com, not to mention the FBI itself, have been hacked into by teenagers. In comparison, Mudcat is child's play.

BTW, if you want access to this message in the future, print it out NOW. Joe, or one of his Joe Clones, will probably delete it as soon as they're aware of it.

---

Actually, no, we won't delete your message. It's true. Mudcat does not have the money the government has available for security. We do the best we can, but it is the truth that a volunteer site like this is more vulnerable to hackers (but then, we have no top-secret information here, and the information we do have is of very little interest to most hackers). We do our best to protect your membership information and personal messages, but we cannot give a 100 percent guarantee. Your information is reasonably safe here, and that's about all I can say. We don't ask you to give more information about yourself than one might find published in a phone book. If you do not have this information published in the phone directory, don't submit it here. We do seriously request you to give your real name and real e-mail address when you register. We operate on an old-fashioned thing called trust and good will. I know that's hopelessly idealistic, but we still want to believe in the goodness of most of humanity. -Joe Offer

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 10:30 AM

I wasn't going to contribute to this thread, had no arguement over censorhip and did regret my actions (alhough as PaulG says, I mentioned nothing current) but it now seems as if my honesty is being called into question.

Firstly, I did not say the situation over PMs was current, I said or tried to indicate, that I made an urgent PM to Jeff to try and get an error fixed becasue of a row that involved people threatening to post contents of PMs in the thread. Someone had already posted that copy paste text would prove nothing and I feared that someone may try to post a link to a PM to settle any doubt. The implication of such a link being posted was that any one could read any one elses PMs. Carol agreed to drop the row for that reason and a fix was applied 2 days later.

Secondly, it is untrue to suggest that matters have always been fixed promptly. It was a damn near impossible task to get anything fixed until Jeff came along. Jeff, in fairness does try to fix things promptly but some areas that Joe and Max have been aware of for some time still exist and need fixing. Evidence of this can be found at (click).

I would dissagree with Joe Offers: "Like it or not, people who prefer anonymity are second-class citizens at Mudcat" and the implication from "We are especially wary of new members who join with false names and e-mail addresses, and those who give no residence information" that people shoud give residence information to aviod "suspicion" on any system. I find it even harder to accept that Joe Offer should make such suggestions on a system he is so worried about that he even has to censor mention of past flaws on.

Finaly, contary to what Joe has suggested, I became aware of most flaws BEFORE becoming a Joe Clone. One would have thought that being a Joe Clone would have made it easier for me to help get areas that I was worried about for the good of everyone here fixed but things just did not work out that way.

Jon

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 10:49 AM

PaulM: In answer to your question (which, by the way, was rather prejudicially stated), I read the thread. I even posted to it. And, of course, my message was brilliant and insightful, but I don't regret that it's gone.

Of course, I can't be sure that a few more messages weren't added to that thread after I read it and before Joe deleted it, but I DID read the portion that revealed a "back door" to Mudcat. In short, there is (or was) a page that would give anyone the power to mess with certain things (for good or ill) if only you knew the URL of that page. There are (or were) no links to it.

The problem is apparently gone now, because I see the URL no longer works the way it did. I assume Max either deleted the page or gave it a new URL. I also assume Max is now working on a more secure way to restore the powers in question to a few trusted members—probably fewer than before.

That page did NOT include the power to view other members' Personal Messages, which is what I think the discussion was mainly about.

What I don't understand is why anyone would reveal this type of information in a public discussion thread. You might as well put a bin of box cutters in an airport concourse, with a sign "Take One."

Mudcat is very much like the small town in which nobody locks their doors. (There really are such places.) Our security depends mainly on the good will of the vast majority of our members, and the fact that people of evil intent have very little reason to be interested in Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 11:07 AM

I should have written, "Our security depends mainly on the good will of the vast majority of our members, on the fact that people of evil intent have very little reason to be interested in Mudcat, and on the ability of those who possess potentially dangerous information to be discreet."

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 11:16 AM

Jim, nothing I said revealed any current back door to Mudcat and I never suggested that PMs were accessible via access to the URL you are hinting at.

Jon

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 08:20 PM

OK, Jon. You made your point. Now, I formally and publicly ask you not to make any public statements about technical aspects of the operation of Mudcat - whether you acquired that information before, during, or after you were a JoeClone. I am not placing any blame. I know you had good intentions, but your disclosures do not help Mudcat in any way. If you have any concerns about the security of Mudcat, or knowledge of any problems that will cause problems, please discuss them privately with Jeff or me. Whenever you have given me information in the past, I have forwarded it immediately to the appropriate person. I promise to continue to do that in the future.
I have limited technical ability, and Max has limited time. Jeff also has some limits on his time, but he has done an extraordinary amount of work to improve Mudcat.
Besides that, Jeff is a darn good guy.
So are you, Jon. But please, do not make any more public disclosure of any sort about the technical aspects of Mudcat.
Thanks, and I wish everyone a happy holiday season.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 11:33 PM

Well I tried a PM about 5 mins after Joes post, maybe just bad timing and he will respond but...

Joe, in a banner you have added, it says:

"One of Jon's major points seems to be that he would like to see Mudcat a closed, members-only Forum. Certainly, that would be more secure - but at what price? We want to remain open to anyone who wants to talk about folk music. That does involve a risk."

You were also the one in the deleted thread who said:

"Like it or not, people who prefer anonymity are second-class citizens at Mudcat"

You are playing editing and deletion games (and I think are beginning to abuse your powers by adding untrue opinions about others in posts - I am pro open to start with...) but which way do you want it? And why would I be arguing against the second class citizens if I wanted things closed as you suggest?

Jon

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 24 Dec 01 - 11:45 PM

Sorry, I am pro open with regards to music. If there was a choice, I would probably look for closed for BS where people do pour their hearts out and can get hurt. When faced with an overall choice as one system for all, I am pro open.

Jon

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 12:00 AM

Sorry, I intended to use quotes i.e. "second class citizens" in my previous post. To explain what I meant: I am against the attidude of viewing people who prefer anonymity as second class citizens.

Jon

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Blackcatter
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 01:01 AM

Like on all websites - I only supply information to the Mudcat that I don't care if anyone knows. This way, I could care less about the security around here.

Certainly, other than occasional reminders to new surfers that this site cannot ever be totally secure and to exercise appropriate caution, discussing the security of this site is inappropriate in the general forum.

pax yall

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 09:32 AM

PaulM...

A little prejudicially penned, hon. You know what they say about flies, vinegar, and honey...

In any case, for me, I *had* read some of the initial thread. And, as I am *not* a hacker, I leave it to those that have better technical know-how than I to make the call, *BUT*, more importantly, I leave it to those who are in charge of this site to ***make their own decisions*** as to how this site should be run.

The reason I support Joe is that he is one of these people, *and* I do not believe in "freedom of speech" on the internet (or in any other privately owned forum/business/venue, for that matter).

If I owned a business, someone came in to give a political speech, and I didn't want it in my place, I'd kick them out. As a privately owned establishment, your 1st amendment rights do not, and *should* not apply. I would be pretty pissed off if the person becried foul on the basis of their 1st amendment rights, and won their court case. Any clues what the future holds in a country where the government tells you how to run your business?

Here in the States, our 1st amendment rights start and stop where your speech about the goverment is concerned, and even where that is concerned, there are limits (you can't threaten the Presidents life and walk). We should all keep in mind (here in this country, anyway) of what happens when the government steps in to control private industry.

The word "Taliban" comes to mind.

So, before you use words like "Sycophant", you might want to ask *why* those of us who support Joes decision have done so. Maybe there is a reason beyond brown nosing.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: PeteBoom
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 01:38 PM

Jaysus - dropped in for a minute between visits with the grandkids. Putting on my professional computer geek hat.

Computer security is an oxymoron. Most security systems are little more than adding layers of complexity on top of each other to dissuade all but the most determined individuals. There are steps that can be taken to prevent the random hack-pass, from what I have seen, they have been. On a board like this, one that is not moderated by folks being PAID to monitor and control it, that seems reasonable. To expect more is a little silly (after all, it is NOT someones full time - paid job, its a hobby). To openly discuss ways to circumvent the proceedures is uncalled for. I've seen other boards shut down by the sys-ops because they got to be too much like work.

Just play nice, folks. We're supposed to be here for fun, right?

Pete Walen Senior Software Quality Assurance Analyst (at a mid-size corporation that shall remain nameless so they don't have a reason to yell at me again - last time was for an interview on software development techniques. Company name was not even MENTIONED in the body of the story... yegodsandlittlefishes...)

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: MAG
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 02:57 PM

I support Joe's dicision, not blindly, but as a member who understands that choices have to be made on a site like this. Many aphorisms spring to mind.

Too many cooks spoil the soup (who wants to be the big cheese expert)

And I certainly agree with Joe's comments about suspicious postings with "flame" written all over them.

Hey, where did that party go? I'm gonna run and catch up ...

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: RichM
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 02:58 PM

The physical structure of the internet is owned mostly by non-government organizations--so are most telephone companies. I don't expect telephone company owners to have the right to censor my conversations. The internet is also a communication forum that can only exist effectively if there is no undue censorship.

I can understand , and applaud the concern that Joe voices in his decision to remove a thread; but I have to say I am against this decision.

Best of the season to all,

Rich McCarthy

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Skipjack K8
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 03:42 PM

Hi all. Happy Crimbo. Just read two threads after days of absence, the Bill Sables and this one. One is the reason for the other. For anyone outside the chattering clique, this is a yawnfest.

Anyone remember why we came to the party?

Skipjack

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: marty D
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 06:12 PM

Gee Skipjack. After an absense, why these two threads instead of the many interesting music ones? I think lots of others remember exactly why they came to the party. Too bad a few can only enjoy the party when THEY make the rules. You got my support Joe.

marty

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 10:55 PM

Why is this thread? I didn't read the original post. I joined the Cat because I've enjoyed the comaraderie, the jerks (myself included), the gems (on occasions myself), and am under no illusions of being the owner here. I am a guest at this site. I try to be polite and follow the general rules of societal norms. But then I'm American and my norms aren't the same as those from other lands.

If the site owners want to delete something - rock on. If I put something on this site either privately (PMs) or publicly I assume anyone can see and read it. What good it will do them I haven't a clue. My server's anti-spamming software seems to do the trick and my anti-virus software gets the rest.

I appreciate all of the hard work that Max and Joe, and others I don't know do to keep this place running. If in their opinion what was posted represented a threat - too bad folks - it needs to get gone. And the request to stay private with other concerns needs to be honored also.

Steve

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: GUEST,Paul Knox
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 11:00 PM

Well Norton, it seems that Joe does not want you to read an column that I published in the Globe & Mail last week. For your benefit, here it is...

---

[lengthy article deleted]
I really do want everybody to read the article - in the Globe and Mail, not here. Nonetheless, a copy of the article was posted with appropriate attribution here (click), so people can read it right here at Mudcat. One copy should suffice.
Thanks.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: JedMarum
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 11:37 PM

Joe - you did the right thing. We have too many 'wipers of other people's noses' (as Monty Python might say) - if we have people insisting that bad things can happen to Mudcat and I going to prove it to you.

I remember having a conversation with a Cuban construction engineer when we were in El Salvador. He said evey day the 'boys' (the local communist guerillas) would speak with him and exchange pleasantries while the hydro-electric damn was being built. But one day, when the project was nearing completion they told him to stay away from the damn that day ... my friend knew why, and did. Sure enough the damn was blown up and destroyed. The 'nice guy' guerillas told the locals, "see, your government can;t protect you."

So now we have Mudcat friends doing us all favors by pointing out the Mudcat short comings - and then being insulted when someone doesn't bow in respect for their 'wisdom?" Please! Take a hike!

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: JedMarum
Date: 25 Dec 01 - 11:49 PM

... sweet of you to pass on the info, PaulM, that is ...

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 12:09 PM

I shouldn't have started this I know but there is a limit to how much I can take...

OK, looks like Joe has me over a barrel in some ways so I won't post anything here and feel that peoples minds are already been made up...

I will however say this:

I have posted my views on security in very generic terms at here I would suggest that those who are posting thier views about what I have tried to do or what I think about security read it and think again.

I would also like to see this thread die.

Jon

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 12:13 PM

I'm having a bad time with links, sorry

Jon

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 01:20 PM

Jon Freeman: This thread isn't all about you.

For those of you who haven't followed this controversy from its beginning:

It began with a posting like the one above allegedly from "GUEST,Paul Knox." Now, Paul Knox (as I have recently learned) is a real person, and a professional journalist, and now that I know that, I am convinced that the person who posted this message is NOT Paul Knox. I also found that several articles cribbed from various (mainly British) journalists' columns in various publications have been posted to various other threads in the same manner, probably by the same GUEST.

One of these articles fooled me for a time. In the belief that "Paul Knox" might continue the discussion, I took the trouble to write a careful reply to "Paul's" message. I would not have wasted my time had I realized that the GUEST who posted Paul Knox's article was probably unable, and certainly unwilling, to carry on the discussion in a respectful, intelligent way.

I alerted Joe Offer. My PM to him was titled, "A new kind of troll?" My intention was only to alert other people to the existence of this type of troll, so that they won't be fooled by it, as I was. I still feel that the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, and they will eventually get bored and go away.

But the discussion wandered into the question of whether we should try to use software controls to keep trolls out, and then to Mudcat security in general, during which some (allegedly) damaging information was disclosed, resulting in the thread being deleted.

I am willing to suspend judgment on whether the information was in fact damaging, but the point is, Joe apparently thought it was, and I absolutely support his right to make judgments of that type. In fact, I am very grateful that he is willing to do so, and to take all the heat that inevitably results.

If I had had my way, the original thread would have died before the discussion took that turn. Then "censorship" would have been unnecessary.

Subject: ? for Joe Offer
From: GUEST,in the spare room
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 09:56 PM

Hey Joe,

In retrospect, don't ya think you'd of saved a lot of grief if you'd just let "Paul Knox" post his article?

A lot of the stuff that you decided to censor wouldn't have come up if you'd left well enough lone.

Anyway, you da censor round here. Not me.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Dec 01 - 10:53 PM

LMAO....First I posted to either thread, but read them both and I gotta' say I'm cracking up over the irony of now having another thread which reviews most of the info in the deleted thread! Geeziz, what a riot!!!

Truly much ado about nothing, more or less.........

Spaw

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: PeteBoom
Date: 27 Dec 01 - 05:25 PM

Right. The lot of you that think that Joe (et al.,) are out to gag you. You're right. Next subject.

Jaysus....

Pete

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Dec 01 - 06:38 PM

Egad! What's this tempest doing in my teacup?

Alex

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Bert
Date: 27 Dec 01 - 11:44 PM

Well said Spaw.

Joe, Are you maybe getting a little too serious.

Jon, I didn't read the message before it was deleted, but, knowing you, I know that you would never do anything EVER to hurt your friends on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 28 Dec 01 - 04:46 AM

Well I wasn't going to post again but in view of wht Bert said...

Bert, the start of this trouble does lie with me. I took exception to some of Joe's comments outlined above (but since explained to me in the context Joe meant which I can accept) partly because I didn't like or agree with the attitude of "second class citizens" (unless we are talking about Guests coming here just to flame...) and partly because I was concerned about people perhaps feeling obliged to give information such as residence information - something I have strong feelings about on systems such as Mudcat and the Annexe.

I am one of those who doesn't care if the world got to know my details but others care and I am against trying to pressure (my interpretation) people into giving information that is not necessary for the operation of a site (I suspect in the UK, it would probably come under the Data Protection Act anyway) a) as a principle and b) because of worries over security.

Where things went really wrong was instead of trying to rationally argue these points, in a state of drunken (I hadn't drunk this much whiskey in months and didn't handle it at all well) anger, my mind switched to a lot of PAST problems and anger over security issues here and I revealed past flaws - an act I very much regret.

From then on the result became a mess with Mick seemingly thinking I was implying that others could currently read PMs, Joe not giving Mick the straight answer and indicating what I had said was not true and me trying to prove what I'd said was true...

Unfortunately, the blame for the start of this one can only lie with me and I don't dissagree with Joe's decision to delete the original thread. I'm less than sure about his decision to start this thread though but it has made very intersting reading to me...

Jon

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: GUEST,AliUKontheworkscomp
Date: 28 Dec 01 - 12:36 PM

I support Joe. And give a little advice. "When drunk, never, but NEVER, go anywhere near a computer."You end up doing the drunken stuff that when it's in 'real'life you can po-facedly say you can't remember, here in cyberland it's down and done and you have a heckuva time taking it back. "keep any of these technical glitches to yourself" I don't wannaknow. simple as that. Whining about problems in a forum that is maintained VOLUNTARILY is a bit rich really don't you think?

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: catspaw49
Date: 28 Dec 01 - 12:50 PM

Jon, thanks for that explanation, which I wondered about at the time....and I know it's something you are aware of and haved discussed before. Thanks.

ALI-----Now if you want to see the humorous side of the drinking thing, TRY THIS THREAD!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Dec 01 - 01:05 PM

geeze...

What a laugh...

Internet security? HA! ;-)

There's no such thing...

And like Mudcat NEEDS good security?? What is there going on here that a hacker would even want??? Who'd bother?

Folk music hackers? I've seen bands that could be called that, but copmputer geeks?

I kinda look at it the same way I look at the average home user installing a firewall... it's a bad idea... all it does is draw attention to yourself and make hackers wonder whta might be ebhind your wall... if they decide to hack you, when they do get in and find NOTHING, they are even more likley to do damage... yer better off not... just let 'em look in and see you've got nothing worth hiding or stealing...

Why make yerself a target for no reason?

;-)

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Amos
Date: 28 Dec 01 - 03:01 PM

Ya know, Clinton, you raise a great point. The best protection against security violations is not to have anything witheld from the rest of the world. 'Course we all have SS and bank account and credcd nums but they don't get into the Cat often, i guess....

A

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 28 Dec 01 - 03:57 PM

Perhaps the thread has taken a more positive twist but given that Cliton and Amos appear to want to trivialise matters, one could observe the following with Mudcat:

Within the Membership section, optional fields include Address and Phone number.

Within Mudcat, there is also Profile (the old name for it) section which draws data from a different source.

Why is there need for both systems?...

There is no sinister data collection at Mudcat in case anyone thinks I'm implying otherwise. I just wish people would think...

Jon

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 01 - 04:57 PM

Having read (with ever increasing wide eyes!!) The above thread.

I have to agree with Clinton H. If you don't want anyone to know something about you.....DON'T TELL THEM!!
I'd hate it if anyone found out that I had an 8" ...(Oh Bugger, thats blown it!!)
Seriously, Nothing is safe in this world, but, if there is any sad hacker out there, who is desperate to know my opinion on Duet Concertinas, Capos, Why Barbara Ellen was not all she made herself out to be.....
Then .....Be my GUEST...(Pun intended!!) Hack away.
It will only result in terminal boredom on the hackers part
Ho Hum.....Ralphie...Got Nyt Ar

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Dec 01 - 05:48 PM

Amos,

We don't ALL have SS numbers. All Americans maybe, but not the rest of the world.

And 9/11 was supposed to make Americans less insular. Apparently not.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: little john cameron
Date: 28 Dec 01 - 06:51 PM

Ah see this is still oan the agenda!If ye add this ane tae the ither threed,wid it be a record? If no'whit is the maist posts oan a subject?. ljc

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Dec 01 - 07:16 PM

400+, ljc. Shhhh- don't say the name out loud- it was the killing the thread one.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: little john cameron
Date: 28 Dec 01 - 07:35 PM

This must be ower 200 by noo. ljc

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 28 Dec 01 - 07:46 PM

Joe; I think you did the right thing. Jon mistakes like misunderstandings happen. Let the music play and let's enjoy that aspect. Lest I not say it to all of the volunteers who make mudcat work, thank you! Have a great new year all. Guest you have an 8" arm? Kindest regards, neil

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: JedMarum
Date: 29 Dec 01 - 01:51 AM

I presumed he was talking about an 8" inch drive - it's an embarassing fact regarding one's home computer equipment! ;-)

My telephone number and home address are both available for all the world through the public telephone listings, among other places. They are accessable from just about anywhere in the world, within moments. If I didn't want them known, they would be unpublished and I certainly wouldn't reveal them to Mudcat. What's the big deal?

I have seen, at nearly any website where I've spent some time, features regardings security, user interface, data presentation, etc. that I would do differently if I were running the site. I've even seen things that I thought were poor design. The truth is Mudcat is a pretty well run, pretty well designed, pretty well managed website - especially considering it is a datbase driven application in a non-commercial environment.

I can't imagine just wishing that Max would 'just think' like me (and do things my way).

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: heric
Date: 29 Dec 01 - 03:09 AM

>>And 9/11 was supposed to make Americans less insular. Apparently not.<<

Oh, darn. I do so want to be perceptive to the appropriate lesson I was intended to take away from 9/11.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: heric
Date: 29 Dec 01 - 03:11 AM

Back to sensitvity training for all of us yanks.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: heric
Date: 29 Dec 01 - 03:15 AM

It was like a great big fucking hello from the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Dec 01 - 04:36 AM

"want to trivialise (sic) matters,"

What the hell could POSSIBLY be any more trivial than the internet?????

Especially, a folk music data base and message board on said internet????

Please...

Do any of us here have any illusions that what we're doing is any truely great shakes???? And if so, by what standard????

Do what ever flips yer switch, and leave everybody else alone....

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Dec 01 - 05:27 AM

Well, I can't speak for you, Clinton, but my involvement here has had a profound effect on the way I live my life in the 3D world, and the change has most emphatically been for the better.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Chip2447
Date: 29 Dec 01 - 05:34 AM

Clinton, you mean that I'm not contributing to the salvation of the planet? Crap.....and all along I thought this was about saving the world. And the internet IS VERY IMPORTANT. Why do you insist on shattering my delusions, why, oh why must you be so cruel? Alas, my reason for being has ended. I'll go away and eat worms now, then I'll die and it will be all your fault...
Chip2447

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Dec 01 - 05:40 AM

Some would say, that your life before, must have been very sad indeed CarolC...

I find it hard to believe that so many people (not just here) can out so much stock into the internet... ephemeral isn't a big enough word to describe it...

Cyberspace is a "consensual hallucination" as William Gibson put it (He's the guy who coined the term 'cyberspace', and then defined it best as "The place where the bank keeps your money") I'll keep profundity for the REAL world, thanks...

But to side with you in a way CarolC, I'll say again...

Do what ever flips yer switch, and leave everybody else alone....

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Dec 01 - 06:11 AM

In some ways it was, Clinton, but that's not the only reason I like the changes that have happened since I started Mudcatting.

My world has become so much bigger because of the internet. Not just on-line communicatons, but also all of the people (and fellow musicians) I've met in person whom I never would have met otherwise. And the month and a half that I spent in Canada last year would never have happened if I hadn't come to the Mudcat, and I cherish that experience.

And I wouldn't even know about Italian accordions versus German accordions had I not come here. I would probably still be a frustrated beginner trying to play the wrong kind and size of accordion. And I live in an area where there are no accordion players, so I was struggling to try to learn how to play with no help from anyone with any experience. The help I've recieved from Mudcatters who play the accordion has probably bumped me up quite a few levels in terms of my playing, above what I would be doing otherwise.

And I've become a better writer because of my involvement here. That's incredibly important to me for a number of different reasons, not the least of which is the creative outlet it provides me.

I'm not suggesting that you should have the same experience or perception of the internet that I have. But I felt that these things were worth saying.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 29 Dec 01 - 02:28 PM

No argument from me CarolC... The internet can be a wonderful TOOL for expanding ones knowledge base, and it does have it's few social elements, but on the flip side, there are still social theorists and what have you who postulate that the internet might yet still prove to be a fad... and well, I can see some of their points...

Chip... good... I thought you'd never leave! LOL!!!!!!!

;-)

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: JedMarum
Date: 29 Dec 01 - 02:55 PM

I have to chuckle at this thread - the one that wouldn't die.

Poor Joe! I hope you aren't tortured by its continued existence ... we are winding down, it appears!

I agree Clinton - on the scale of things, this Internet stuff has not made a major ipact on humanity ... but I have to say I've enjoyed my use of it, learned some very interesting things and made some valuable friendships.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Dec 01 - 06:16 PM

It is still in its infancy...to soon to make such sweeping judgements, imo.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Chip2447
Date: 30 Dec 01 - 03:48 AM

Sure Clinton, treat a fellow mead and maille maker like that. Does away with all the competition that way eh? Just for that, I aint eating no worms. PHHBBBTTTTTTTT.
Just for that. I'm gonna spoil your reputation tell everyone that you are a really nice guy.

I'm admitting to a wee bit of thread drift here.

Chip2447 (who doesn't take life too seriously)

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: AliUK
Date: 30 Dec 01 - 09:42 PM

well I think it's my turn to add to the thread creep. For some of us Clint, the internet is an important forum. And everything in life is just a tool to better understanding and ways of living said life. Books are just tools, an education system is just a tool, thoughts are also tools ( as well as resolutions) does that make them any more ephemeral. The internet has become an integral part of many millions of peoples lives. For me it is a way to communicate with like minded people in my native language. I use it for research in my job ( it has been extremely useful in bettering my methodology. Incidently as an english teacher, some of the discussions here on the cat have gone directly into my classroom). I think that William Gibson when he defined cyberspace was perhaps being ironic( I won't say cynical because I've met Bill a couple of times and he never struck me as being cynical.Be it for good or evil, the internet is now an integral part of our lives, and like any medium has ceased to be ephemeral and become something of use.

Subject: RE: Censored Thread
From: Greyeyes
Date: 31 Dec 01 - 04:38 AM

Clinton, all things are relative, and on a universal scale, all things are relatively ephemeral. The internet is a repository of human knowledge. If the information disappears of course it is ephemeral, just as words on paper are ephemeral if you put a match to them, or words carved in tablets of stone are ephemeral if the stone is ground to dust.

The internet has changed the world already, my job as a librarian is unrecognisable compared to what it was 20 years ago. I can now theoretically provide a reference service in a local branch library the size of a broom cupboard comparable to that which would only have been available in a big central reference library a few years ago.

Obscure folk music queries I am confronted with which previously I simply wouldn't have been able to answer, I can know satisfy in minutes by searching the DT or Forum. I have never yet needed to start a thread to find the answer to such an enquiry. The information has always been somewhere on the Mudcat, on occasions Clinton, I have even found the answer in one of your ephemeral postings.