 sj |
||
|
||
Tech: Shambles can you help?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jan 04 - 08:19 AM P.S. Why is it wrong for me to express my opinion if I consider a thread (or a person) "tedious"? If everyone else can express their opinion here, why can't I? Because I can't pass judgement on your opinion and take editing action based only on that - if it may not be to my personal taste. You and your volunteers can and do. Is it so bad to ask you to make a choice between contributing as equals or sitting in judgement? You would appear to wish to have it both ways - this may be understandable - but is this really fair? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Jan 04 - 07:58 AM It seems to me that oftentimes, the stongest advocates of anarchy are the ones who want to take over, enthroning themselves as petty tyrants. I think that is making my point well. If you create a system of censorship that assumes that anyone expressing a different course (just asking for a fair and accountable one) is advocating anarchy and that they would wish to set themselves up - in your place - and this assumption is not correct - then you are burning the wrong witches and these measures will be counter-productive. And they currently are. A policeman friend of mine always told his young 'coppers' that 'assumption is the mother of all cock-ups'. Joe am I free to make copy and pastes and dublicate postings or am I not? It would appear that the answer to this depends on how Joe is feeling on the day and which other volunteer - who may consider me to be a "royal pain" gets to it first? P.S. Why is it wrong for me to express my opinion if I consider a thread (or a person) "tedious"? If everyone else can express their opinion here, why can't I? If the main contention that the volunteers are there to protect us from abusive postings and name-calling - is it really setting the right example - if you and other volunteers are seen to be passing judgement based on your persoanal tastes or taking part in expressing that abuse and calling other posters names like 'idiot and troll' and using words like F***? This is a double standard. The mesaage that is giving is saying don't do as I do - do as I say. The answer to that would be fairly obvious should volunteers wish to been seen as censoring in an objective fashion as is the claim and defence made currently. Is your 'job' to be seen to be encouraging contributions from everyone - all over the world or to be inhibiting contributions that you do not personally care for or may not be able to 'figure-out'? If our roles were reversed - I suggest that you may see the need to ask me to produce some rules and for me to be seen to be consistently enforcing them. Otherwise you may accuse me of doing my 'job' in a biased, or arbitary fashion. Do you not see that it is not possible to both run with the fox and hunt with the hounds? Should not those who volunteer to judge us and to censor our contributions be expected to be judged in turn and by the same if not higher standards? If they are not - then they have no defence from being accused of witch-hunting for that is exactly what it is. When the obvious witches have been burned - there is nothing to protect less obvious targets from receiving the same treatment. There is only one way these unacountable systems can go - unless a serious and urgent review takes place - based on what the volunteers are actually doing rather than what we are told they are. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: GUEST,c.sparra Date: 24 Jan 04 - 08:09 PM LOL McG. They also do two meals for a fiver. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Jan 04 - 07:43 PM Witherspooon's - quite decent chain of pubs, in England. Cheap (and good) beer,. And our one in Harlow's got a wall of shelves full of all kinds of books. No live music, but no canned music either. Used to be the employment exchange. Well, it still is, in a sense. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 04 - 07:18 PM There have been several renowned people named Witherspoon, but there s no such thing as a common-noun, lower-case witherspoon, although it amusing that it popped out. I suppose it could be construed to mean someone whose own spoon was withered... A |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Jan 04 - 06:42 PM What about the Jazz Player, Jimmy Witherspoon? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: Big Mick Date: 24 Jan 04 - 06:11 PM Thanks, Joe. I am glad you enunciated the guidelines we operate under. As a clone, I would only add that when I delete a post, or close a thread, I immediately send an email to Joe and Jeff letting them know I did that. The only threads I have ever deleted/closed (a total of 3, I think) were personal attacks and outright solicitations that had no bearing on our basic musical premise. Those that choose to be a royal pain should be grateful for Joe. Were it not for his steady hand, I am quite sure I would have blocked you long ago, and deleted all your posts. But he is much more tolerant than I am. I don't have a problem with GUESTS, nor do I have a problem with controversy. A check under my name will show you that I have taken part in any number of controversial discussions here. But those whose railing on about problems that don't exist, play the martyr game, or act in a destructive, bullying, and mean way are fair game as far as I am concerned. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: Cluin Date: 24 Jan 04 - 05:13 PM Well said, Joe. All of it. I don't envy your role. Or any of the Clones. If it were up to me, there'd be thread closings and deletions galore around here. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Jan 04 - 03:59 PM There's "anarchy" meaning chaos, and "anarchism" meaning organisation without imposed authority. That's what I mean by saying the Mudcat is an excellent exanple of that, as also are most music sessions in pubs. "Pragmatic" when I say it, means, when preconceived theory and precedent get in the way of things working well, it's a good idea to be willing to modify the theory, and set new precedents. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: Joe Offer Date: 24 Jan 04 - 03:29 PM It seems to me that oftentimes, the stongest advocates of anarchy are the ones who want to take over, enthroning themselves as petty tyrants. Funny thing - the strongest advocates of control have the same goals. And those of us in the middle often seem to lose out in this polarized world. I live in a semi-rural area of the Sierra foothills of California, an area that is becoming more and more urban every year. We still have many people who are actual or philosophical descendants of the people who came and stripped this land during the Gold Rush. They want to be able to shoot their guns and dump or burn their trash and run their dobermans and drive their big trucks wherever they want. They continually elect a congressman whose prime purpose in life is to build a dam on our beautiful American River. They talk constantly about preserving their precious freedom, but their guns and trash and dogs and cars and dams have a huge impact on everyone else, and on the animals and the earth. Then we have the "City folks" who move up here with their Cadillac SUV's and their McMansion homes. The first thing they do when they come, is build a big fence with an electric gate. They cut down the trees and move the earth and bring in professional landscapers to "improve" their environment. They call the dogcatcher any time they see a neighbor's dog roam a bit. They lobby for controls of everything that happens in the county - except for the ecological rape that happens inside their sacred gates and fences. Then there's the rest of us, the ones in the middle. We don't have much say-so here, because we have lives to live and families to rainse, and don't have time to make a lot of noise and lobby for this and that. Internet Forums are an intensification of that - if often seems that the ones who post the most words have an inordinate amount of control. Our goal in editing is to level the playing field a bit, so that everybody has a chance to take part in discussions. We really try to be careful about what we edit. If somebody posts information or an opinion they've taken time to think about and write in their own words, we won't delete it unless it is clearly a violation of our established rules (basically - no racism, no personal attacks, and no obvious Spam). If it's a large quantity of words that are available copy-pasted from elsewhere (on Mudcat or on another site), we don't consider those posts sacrosanct - although, if they're not getting out of hand, we'll usually leave them alone. Note, though, that it's only messages that we leave alone. If our discussions get spread over too many threads, or if we have too many threads on the same topic, we have utter chaos. We reserve the right to combine or close threads. We have over 66,000 threads posted, and about 1.1 million messages. We have to tweak things a bit to make some sort of sense of things. We try to do our tweaking sparingly. I know it's impossible to satisfy everybody with our editing work, but we try to do our best. We try to stay somewhere in the middle in our editing policy. We don't see a need for total anarchy, and we don't see a need for having rules to guide every step. We try to use common sense - but the anarchists and the rules people really don't understand the concept of common sense, so we'll never be able to please them. -Joe Offer- P.S. Why is it wrong for me to express my opinion if I consider a thread (or a person) "tedious"? If everyone else can express their opinion here, why can't I? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: Amos Date: 24 Jan 04 - 02:20 PM Apology accepted. There is no such thin as a witherspoon, BTW. It was a humourous additive. A |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: Cluin Date: 24 Jan 04 - 01:01 PM Those who advocate anarchy are likely to be the first f**kers up against the wall if it were actually to occur. Not an attack, just a personal observation. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: Bill D Date: 24 Jan 04 - 12:55 PM If you write a "letter to the editors" of a newspaper, they may or they may NOT publish it. If you write 347 letters a year, it is certain they will not publish them all. Here in the US, we have call-in radio "talk shows" for people to express opinions. Those programs have screeners to be sure a few folks with speed dialers and single issue agendas do not overwhelm things..(or that no one gets to scream obscenities or drunken rages). Those are called 'moderated forums'...for good reason! In this world, there are very few places where a totally UN-moderated forum would work, because they get swamped by a combination of crazies and single-issue zealots who cause serious distractions. The WWW/internet is a major change in life, as those who are SURE they are 'right' about some topic can, essentially, ramble on incessantly about it. Some do it with their own websites, but they are not assured that those they wish to reach will come listen....so they go to various newsgroups, bulletin boards, and discussion forums. Usenet (newsgroups)is full of examples of extended debates, discussions and 'flame wars' where it requires a will of IRON to avoid the more tedious rantings. Mudcat has become, by necessity, a semi-moderated forum....a community where people who talk a lot about 'folk music' can also discuss other things, both serious and silly. Mechanisms have been developed to allow this to work reasonably well, but the privilege (not RIGHT--privilege gets abused at times. The process of 'moderating' gets called by other names by some of those who find THEIR posts 'moderated'. Now....we have two issues-different, but inter-related. 1)should there be ANY moderation/censorship....and 2)if so,where and by whom 1) has been answered by the owner, Max 2) has been partially answered by the owner, Max, who does not care to read everything in the forum everyday, and couldn't if he wanted to. He delegated the job..HIS choice, and the only choice possible after 1). 'Most' people posting here are either pleased or unconcerned about the choices Max has made. But we get one or two 'members' and odd numbers of 'guests' who want to debate endlessly both 1) AND 2)! ........And, they resort to circular arguments, saying essentially, "editing/moderating/censoring is wrong, and any attempt to edit moderate or censor my argument 'proves' that wrongness and unfairness". Then, having made accusations of biased, unreasonable censorship, they demand the accused 'prove' they are not guilty, all the while making it clear that the ONLY way to 'prove' one is not baised and unreasonable in their censorship is to never engage in any editing or censorship! Fascinating! "The only way to run "your" forum is to make it totally "our" forum (where have I heard that before?) and allow anarchy and unlimited diatribes!" Shambles, you say "What I am suggesting is that perhaps the best way to deal with it here is just to ignore it and to encourage others to do this by setting a good example and just move on?" ...I submit that it has been **DECIDED** that that is NOT the best way to deal with it. What part of DECIDED do you not understand? At least two of the 'censored' members you advocate so hard for have requested you NOT advocate for them, as their issues have been resolved and they trust the system! Joe posted in the other thread, "Max hasn't fired us yet"...I think you should be happy it is Joe making most of the decisions about the relatively few deletions and thread closings...he is more generous than I think I might be. (if you have actually read all of this....here is one more plea- which I doubt will be heard....join the OTHER discussions and let this one die!) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Jan 04 - 06:40 AM The following is the thread that Bill D referred to. Shambles whine about Mudcat thread I repeat..."Nowhere was it ever decided that the BS area was fair game for any sort of spam, stalking, hate messages, personal insults and incoherent babbling!" Not sure that I have ever suggested that is was - but we do manage to ignore, avoid or otherwise deal with all this stuff in the real world and elswhere on the internet - without the hysterical reactions here that threaten to throw the baby out with the bath-water. And that more importantly do not prevent any of this stuff from appearing here anyway - as much of it is coming from members and those who volunteer to judge and censor our contributions? What I am suggesting is that perhaps the best way to deal with it here is just to ignore it and to encourage others to do this by setting a good example and just move on? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Jan 04 - 06:11 AM Well, I actually do think that the Mudcat is an excellent example of pragmatic anarchism. I don't think what Shambles seems to have in mind would be. Yet another opinion with no evidence provided and one worth just as much as anyone else's - except of course the opinions of those who will censor our contributions based on their opinions. But the qualification of the word 'pragmatic' is interesting and makes me smile. This word has come over time to mean 'practical', what it actually means is 'minding everyone else's business'. I kid you not.......... But how about a trial period with no censorship - to test if your opinion can be supported? Amos - Some evidence of this 'venom' coming from me - would be appreciated. I would suggest that IF any venom has come from me – it rather pails into insignificance to the personal abuse that I have received. However, anyone would reasonably expect to receive this – should they venture to suggest that the current system is in anyway less than perfect or to suggest improvements. I have ploughed on and if I have not always found time for the 'niceties' This "parboiled witherspoon" apologises to you for that. Joe Offer says The "hijacked" thread I'm talking about is this one. When Shambles turned it into yet another tedious anti-Mudcat discussion, the participants took their discussion over into a new thread. They shouldn't have been forced to do that. My point about the type of censorship action that is becoming routine - is that it will inevitably increase. For every such action creates an expectation – the help forum is full of such examples. Can you delete such and such? I don't think so - because - But you did this to such and such so – The BS thread referred to that I am accused here of single-handedly 'hijacking' by the volunteers demonstrates very well the 'scapegoating' that is encouraged. The personal view and judgement expressed that such discussions are anti- Mudcat and "tedious" is also questionable, coming as it does from an official moderator – but does demonstrate that such discussions are inhibited by this official view. As are threads on many other subjects such as birthday threads or others that are not to the tastes or our volunteers. However, BS discussions on bodily functions and God knows what else seem to escape these views? This thread contains many other examples - the main one being that – even if you accept that "they shouldn't have had to do that" – which I do not accept that 'they' did – this solution was arrived at without any (public) intervention or censorship action needing to be taken by our volunteers. Is this an example of anarchy – or of contributors people being quite able to solve their problems on their forum without any official action - as I advocate? This thread also demonstrates well the double standard – about what we are led to expect will be censored. I suspect that had anyone other than me made the post to this thread – that I did – that it would not have resulted in accusations about 'hijacking' the the thread. If you look, you will see that my first post there, is followed and far out-numbered by many from the usual suspects. Some entering into debate – some just making personal comments and questioning my parentage, state of mental health and reason for existence – some just putting in amusing ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzs – and the rest posting and reviving the thread and telling everyone else to shut-up and stop reviving the thread. Not too sure if there was anyone in this thread asking for it to be closed down for no apparent or valid reason – but that expectation also seems to have been fed lately. But we are told to expect that when folk 'paste and copy' large chunks of material from elsewhere – this will be deleted. I am not judging Barry's contribution for I found it of great value but have I not been led to expect that this post should have been censored for this reason? We are also led to expect that duplicate postings will also be deleted. So not only does Barry's copy and paste survive despite this first expectation – there are now duplicate copies of the same lengthy cut and paste on two current threads! Yes, I know that all this was really all MY fault…………..*smiles* Now I have nothing against Barry or his actions but I can't help having being given the expectation that had I produced the copy and paste or made the duplicate post – that these would have been censored. And that had I questioned this - the relevant part of Joe's FAQ would have been produced and many folk would have supported this action on the grounds that these are the rules………….. We either have rules that are consistently enforced – or I would suggest that we possibly already have double standards and yes - anarchy? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: Amos Date: 23 Jan 04 - 06:22 PM Joe: Fair-minded of you, considering hw much venom he has sent in your direction. I have been burned by the same venom, and I am not going back there without some high boots on, and maybe not then . Too much underhanded undercutting. A |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: Bill D Date: 23 Jan 04 - 04:29 PM "However, there is also now a part of the forum set aside for BS or non music related threads. Anyone opening these should not be surprised if they find BS. Anyone being offended - if they should open these - can be told not to open them. So there really is no need for this section to be controlled or attempted to be controlled in the same manner." copied from the OTHER thread: "You 'seem' to have switched from blanket condemnation of editing and/or deleting posts to claiming that the BS section should be exempt. Nowhere was it ever decided that the BS area was fair game for any sort of spam, stalking, hate messages, personal insults and incoherent babbling! The BS section was merely to allow 'reasonable' off topic discussion to be avoided by those who wanted the basic music & technical discussions to be less cluttered. The BS area allows a LOT of latitude in plain silliness, political discussions, religious debate and even THIS interminable meta-debate of the rules of debate!" I repeat..."Nowhere was it ever decided that the BS area was fair game for any sort of spam, stalking, hate messages, personal insults and incoherent babbling!" and, who knows, I may repeat it again! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jan 04 - 04:27 PM Well, I actually do think that the Mudcat is an excellent example of pragmatic anarchism. I don't think what Shambles seems to have in mind would be. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Jan 04 - 03:57 PM Where have I ever said that anarchy is glorious and sacred? I do believe that there is something glorious and sacred about a precious comodity called our freedom of expression. Joe do you not see any difference between anarchy and that freedom? For along with freedom comes a responsibility not to deny the freedom to others that you may take as a right. This means accepting things that are not to your taste. Anyone on the internet filters out the things that are not to their tastes - it would be very nice not to have to do this but the world is not always a nice place - the internet reflects this and our forum also reflects all aspects its contributors from all over the world. I respect and would probably share your views of what you wish to see our forum to reflect - but there is now a forum for music-related posts that be shaped to some degree to your wishes. I just hope this can rather be shaped by your positive contributions and good example rather than censoring, moving and deleting other's contributions that are not to your personal taste. However, there is also now a part of the forum set aside for BS or non music related threads. Anyone opening these should not be surprised if they find BS. Anyone being offended - if they should open these - can be told not to open them. So there really is no need for this section to be controlled or attempted to be controlled in the same manner. Perhaps an experiment can be carried out - where for a trial period no one censors anything on the BS forum? Then there will be some way of evaluating the effectivness of the current 'control'. We can then see if this measure makes things better or worse if if there is no change at all.... I suspect there will be little change - which will be a good argument to leave it free of censorship to allow it to function as a safety net for the music-related one. We may even be able to extend this approach to the music forum? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: wysiwyg Date: 23 Jan 04 - 03:39 PM Sometimes the semantics are what's making things upsetting, IMO. And maybe someone who knows Joe well can see that sometimes he just writes a little fast-- such as above where he talks about controlling what's obnoxious. The Joe I know is too realistic to try to do THAT-- I THINK what he means is to control the resulting mess and damgages-- which is actually MANAGEMENT, something that any organized effort benefits from. The Joe I know is into pragmatic solutions, not abusive power moves. Controlling (containing) a situation is part of that, and it's not at all the same as controlling a PERSON. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Jan 04 - 12:56 PM Well, Amos, it IS an interesting question. Shambles sees anarchy as something glorious and sacred. I agree that there are many aspects of Internet anarchy that seem to be just wonderful. I just don't think it will work here, and I'd like to see Mudcat remain a forum for musicians, not a testing ground for the principles of anarchy that Shambles has proposed. Nonetheless, I challenge Shambles to post his proposals here - in concise, logical fashion. Shambles isn't very good at being concise and logical, but maybe we should give him a chance. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: Amos Date: 23 Jan 04 - 12:49 PM DOn't worry about it, Joe; I think Sham is too young to be retired, so I assume he is unemployed and has too much time on his hands. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Jan 04 - 12:12 PM The "hijacked" thread I'm talking about is this one. When Shambles turned it into yet another tedious anti-Mudcat discussion, the participants took their discussion over into a new thread. They shouldn't have been forced to do that. The county Kerry thread is this one. There probably would have been no intervention in the Kerry thread if the earlier one hadn't been hijacked with anti-Mudcat complaints. It appeared the Kerry thread was going in the same direction, so editorial action was taken to prevent a problem before it got out of control. Maybe it wouldn't have gotten out of control - but intervention is useless once the damage is done. We take editorial action to prevent problems, not to clean up the rubble once the damage has already been done. It's a matter of guesswork for us - and sometimes we guess wrong. Shambles insists that Mudcat volunteers must follow consistent rules in the work they do to try to keep the peace here. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. People keep coming up with new ways of being obnoxious - and we have to come up with new ways of controlling the worst of their obnoxiousness. We let normal obnoxiousness go, but we do take action when it looks like something is getting out of control. We try to do it with a light hand, but I suppose we're not always successful. Sometimes, we make mistakes, and I apologize for that. Now, if Shambles wants to start his own Website and prove his theory of benevolent anarchy, I highly encourage him to do so. I predict that the results would be similar to what happens in Golding's Lord of the Flies. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Jan 04 - 11:12 AM Joe how is 'serious discussion' defined and how does it differ from a non-serious one? How is 'hijacking' defined? It would seem that any posting to any thread can be made - such as the introduction of hampsters or to start talking about a particulat guitar - when the post is about discussion groups and this is not considered as hijacking. In its mildest form it was considered as thread drift but in the case where it is a quite a deliberate attempt to crowd the original poster out - encouraged or tolerated by volunteers such as here Forums Discussion Groups these diversions are tolerated -if not even officially encouraged. It would appear that you only consider this to be 'hijacking' and prepared to take any action (in this case pretty swift action) when the post is in any way critical of the Mudcat? If it isn't fair to divert other discussions just because you want to to complain about Mudcat. then it can't be fair to divert other discussions at any other time and it should be dealt with just as swiftly. Is there not in truth a very thin line between what is the thread taking its natural course and say thread drift? And also between the deliberate 'spamming' of a thread that may be considered unsuitable in some way, usually because this may also be a little critical of the Mudcat - and what you consider to be 'hijacking'? As these are matters of personal taste they will be inconsistent - when a uniform approach is called for to protect the volunteers. Would it not be a better approach to just let things run their course? For even when the thread is started to be critical - such as the Guest Postings one - trigger happy volunteers seem to be just looking for some excuse to 'zap' it rather than being prepared to change anything in response to the thread. Yes I know these threads would go on forever - but if that is what the contributors wish to contribute to - why should you be judge of this? Why can't you let the posters decide? No one can divert a thread without the help of those who respond. And if they choose to respond - is that not then the natural course of the thread, whatever your personal tastes may be? God forbid - rather than using your edit button - you could even choose to make a positive contribution to the thread and change the direction back to where you wish it to go. When you volunteer to set yourself up to judge others - it is not unreasonable to expect some criticism? I am amazed just how lightly these actions are treated by many and what an easy ride you get- but unless you think that you are perfect - is it not time to just try 'roll with the punches'? Let folk have their complaint and deal with it openly - if you are doing a good job - you should be able to always explain this and have a good answer - wherever the complaint is made. |
|
Subject: BS: Shambles can you help: PART TWO From: GUEST,amused Date: 22 Jan 04 - 05:22 PM I must have been hallucinating then? Now hurry up chaps and close this thread too.
Your original message got lost due to some sort of computer glitch, not by intentional deletion. There would be no reason to delete that original message. Hope that answers your question. Sorry, but Shambles can't help you with such problems. Pene Azul and I are the ones who handle that - and it's best to post questions like that in the Help Forum. I can't really see a reason why this thread should be open or closed, but I guess I might as well reopen it, so you can say whatever it is you feel you have to say. -Joe Offer- joe@mudcat.org |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: Pene Azul Date: 22 Jan 04 - 05:11 PM Nothing has been deleted from that thread. Jeff |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: GUEST,Amused Date: 22 Jan 04 - 05:06 PM No honest, it was there, and then it wasn't, i saw it with my own three eyes. I really have neither have the time nor inclination to "poke the fire". The same old names seem more than capable of that. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: A missing post From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Jan 04 - 05:04 PM That happens often enough, and normally, in my case, it's because I've pushed the wrong button or something like that. Or something has happened out in cyberspace in between here and the Mudcat. If this is a genuine query (rather than just giving the fire a little poke to keep it going), the better place to ask a question like this is the Mudcat Help forum. |
|
Subject: Tech: Shambles can you help? From: GUEST,Amused Date: 22 Jan 04 - 04:48 PM Shambles maybe you can throw some light on this? Look at the thread from Sorcha asking "Who is in Kerry?" Living in Kerry, I jumped right in and gave advice re the Ring of Kerry and our wonderful tourist board. Then Dianavan posted, saying the music is not as good as it was, because we are feeling "exposed" and "inhibited".Apparently she has visited our beautiful county twice. I posted back to Dianavan the following: Dianavan, I live in Kerry and feel neither exposed or inhibited. Maybe you should visit a third time and tell us where we are going wrong?" This appears to be deleted, spookily enough at the same time as Fat Mick posted on another thread. Am I being paranoid or are the dark forces you speak of at work? |
| Share Thread: |
