 sj |
||
|
||
BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Shambles Date: 22 Jun 04 - 03:22 PM The more tolerant posters are generally even tolerant of the intolerant and pedantic, who love 'rules' being imposed upon others, who have been and are now being encouraged to think that the main purpose of our forum is to mind everyone else's business. However, this does not mean that the majority are in agreement, that it is. They are more concerned with shaping our forum by making their contributions, as I am. Sadly this leaves to door wide open to those whose main purpose in life appears to be to sit in judgement on others, in the name of order. I woke up a little while ago to the fact that the party I was invited to a long time ago, was not the same one that many others thought they were being invited to now and with different hosts. I am sure that many others are also quite unaware that the 'bouncers' are now making up their own rules and encouraging the pedants to post to 'snitchers corner' (the Mudcat Help Forum), to report the indiscretions of others. This I would suggest is the 'obsession' that is possibly of more concern than my views. It was with a view to address this 'obsession' that this thread was started and not by me....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Jun 04 - 12:44 PM Here's the main point, SHambles, and you said it yourself: Meanwhile, the rest of the forum business goes on perfectly well, quite oblivious to all of this..... Yes, things go just fine without any attention to your obsession. Perhaps you might catch a clue from that? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Shambles Date: 22 Jun 04 - 12:37 PM Shush! Not a single word from anyone. Not one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: wysiwyg Date: 22 Jun 04 - 11:55 AM It was "Please MOVE" the thread, not "remove" it. One more example of an effort to lobby on behalf of nameless "many" by someone who doesn't even READ how things actually ARE. Having lost the argument in the Help Forum, now it's back to the regular threads to stir up shit that isn't even THERE. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Shambles Date: 22 Jun 04 - 10:25 AM An recent example, of what the original post refered to. Please remove the 'singing in shorts' thread |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 21 Jun 04 - 09:07 PM Shambles-your annoying, youre lucky I don't know were you live, if i did, i would piss through your letter box.john |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Shambles Date: 21 Jun 04 - 02:13 PM I am sorry if the rather sensible suggestion and concern did rather get overtaken. For those who may not have seen it, this was the original post in this thread. Subject: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: Bee-dubya-ell - PM Date: 04 Jun 04 - 10:55 AM Seems like every day a few non-music threads get started without the "BS" prefix. While most such instances are due to simple forgetfulness or newcomers' not knowing any better, they always seem to draw out the harpies who like to scream, in their ear-piercing voices, "This is not about music! Move it! Where's that JoeClone? I demand that this thread be moved NOW! Its presence here offends me as if it were a dog turd on the dinner table!" (As you can probably guess, I find their over-reaction and lack of patience to be far more offensive than the offending thread's accidental inclusion above the BS line.) It would seem to me that much of the problem could be solved by requiring that one state whether a thread is about music or non-music before it is even created. This would entail the addition of a single input-required field into the database. Then, when someone creates a new thread, the first thing he or she sees is a simple question like "Is this thread on a MUSICAL or NON-MUSICAL topic? (Click on one or the other.)" If you don't answer the question you don't get to the Create-a-Thread screen. Of course, this would not prevent subversive, radical, nihilistic anarchists from intentionally infiltrating the MUSIC section and seeding it with BS and thus bringing the whole structure crumbling to the ground, but it would help forgetful old farts remember that BS is BS. Bruce |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 12 Jun 04 - 07:51 AM I'm outta here! Hang in there Roger, but you're on your own - I've wasted enough of my life here on the Mudcat! bye! Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: Blackcatter Date: 12 Jun 04 - 12:31 AM Come on Foolestroupe, that's pretty harsh. jOhn*s a good guy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 11 Jun 04 - 11:27 PM ??? Your'e as mad as he is! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 11 Jun 04 - 09:24 PM ... and thanks to people like jOhn (who would never even WANT to be a Nazi), the Nazis succeeded in taking control of Germany ... Plagairised from a source elsewhere... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 11 Jun 04 - 02:06 PM Well, somebody had to tell him! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: Ed. Date: 11 Jun 04 - 02:04 PM LOL, John! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 11 Jun 04 - 11:58 AM Shambles-Why don't you fucking shut up? have you really got better to do, on a hot sunny day, than sit there whinging? you're like a moany old bingo woman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Shambles Date: 11 Jun 04 - 11:49 AM If you want a good (if sad and sorry) laugh and an example of the double standard I refer to - have a look at the help forum thread now. http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=2597&messages=2 Despite what was said eariler, Joe has finally decide to delete the offending thread, because it was a personal attack. But somehow appears think that such comments as the following from him - are perfectly in order. Not only is there a danger that the volunteers will follow this example, it appears that they are being encouraged to. Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something. And But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation. Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit. Meanwhile, the rest of the forum business goes on perfectly well, quite oblivious to all of this..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 11 Jun 04 - 10:18 AM Your'e all crazy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 11 Jun 04 - 10:11 AM You know, Shambles, I think you are paranoid... the BS thread "In My opinion" - which contained a vicious attack on Bob Bolton, followed by a large number of people including myself, jack halyard, Hrothgar, el ted, et. al. supporting him, and about which you and others posted to a thread on the help server, has not been deleted - it just never existed! I'm OK now Shambles, I'm taking The Offical Party Line Mudcat Little Purple Pills, and they tell me that son I can wubbawubbawbbawubbawubbawubbawubba.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Shambles Date: 11 Jun 04 - 08:32 AM What are you on about, Robin? Are you being persecuted? Edited? Censored? Imposed upon? If you are suggesting that something untoward is happening to your posts, something sinister and sneaky, perhaps you could be more specific. Innuendo is all well and good, but not very constructive. [Oh good, another witch standing up and volunteering to be burned as a dissenting voice to the good old double standard.] Innuendo would appear to be OK, if it is being used by some to question a poster who may hold and express a different view. And to suggest that this poster may have some unspecified ulterior motive, or to question many other aspects of their personality. There does not appear to be a need for this form of innuendo to be very constructive. Some of our volunteers actully take pride in posts of this nature, as if this was required or expected of them. Again there are many examples of the use this innuendo, that are tolerated if not even not actively encouraged, if you really wish to see them. However and despite the reality of all this unhelpful nonsense, there is no conspiracy or real persecution, just a little skewed thinking. All done in the noble and laudable aim of protecting something that is percieved (with a lot of collective paranoia, if little firm evidence) to be under organised attack. This skewed thinking has resulted in a double standard that is blindingly obvious, it seems, to all but those who would indulge in it or support this double standard. But it is this skewed thinking, the use, support and justification of double standards, uneeded judgements, secrecy, inconsistency and focus on maintaining order at all costs, that really presents the main threat to our forum, by our volunteers. The srange thing is that all this is undertaken because of a fear, often expressed, that the forum will be TAKEN OVER. So anyone who may not accept that all these measures and the division created by it, are required, are perceived as wishing to TAKE OVER, or of playing a part in this TAKE OVER. I suggest that all this demonstrates that our forum has already been TAKEN OVER by a minority and that it is now time for it to go back to ALL of its contributors and to the tolerent spirit in which its creator and site owner originally intended. Other wise the very small band of those who really would like to see Max fail, (for reasons known only to them) would have suceeded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: Blackcatter Date: 11 Jun 04 - 01:27 AM Yep amos. Pretty soon We'll find Joe complaining that he censored himself unfairly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: Amos Date: 11 Jun 04 - 12:55 AM Oh, dear Gawd, it is contagious... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: SueB Date: 11 Jun 04 - 12:15 AM What are you on about, Robin? Are you being persecuted? Edited? Censored? Imposed upon? If you are suggesting that something untoward is happening to your posts, something sinister and sneaky, perhaps you could be more specific. Innuendo is all well and good, but not very constructive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 10 Jun 04 - 11:48 PM More than few....have been "caught" sleeping at the gate...during their watch.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 10 Jun 04 - 07:58 PM I find (through my own personal experiences) that you are talking more and more sense, Shambles. Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Shambles Date: 10 Jun 04 - 11:28 AM I think that what is says is that I have been called many worse in my time and I have rather gotten used to ignoring it, especially on this forum. Sticks and stones may be a different matter by words are only words. But why open the post to be offended more than once? I am sure that Bob Bolton is grateful for your concern but if he is even aware that he is being insulted he is probably just trying to ignore it too. Shall I expect you to rush to my defence when one of or volunteers starts insulting me and questioning my parentage, sanity and medical condition? I can provide plenty of examples of this - if you really wish? As to fanning the flames. This thread was started with a suggestion that may help to prevent posters feeling that they have to post to complain about every small indiscretion that another poster may make. In the hope that folk will not be encouraged to think that they have to mind everyone else's business or that that have any right over anyone's postings but their own. It is useful to have some examples to show, as many folk do not accept that such intolerance is rapidly becoming the norm here. Of course I do not agree that such posts are required to demonstrate our freedom of speech. It is irritating to say the least that such things are posted but they are and we must find a way of dealing with it, that does not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is a great shame that we have to, but we do find that we are ignoring more and more online generally. Is it not just possible that such threads are started here - just because there is something to push against? And that if this charging around trying to prevent what is really not preventable, was to stop - that many of these kind of postings would also stop? Perhaps this approach is worth a try, as nothing else has? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: JennyO Date: 10 Jun 04 - 10:06 AM Shambles - of course by mentioning it here and linking to it, you are not fanning the flames, are you? If I had read your post here before the other one, I would not have taken the trouble to reply to you there in as civil manner as I did. This is part of what I said on that forum: It seems obvious to me by your tone that you include this kind of garbage as being worthy of protection in your "freedom of expression" campaign, regardless of who it might hurt. In fact, it sounds rather like you are enjoying this. Maybe if you or one of your friends was the object of a personal attack like this, you might feel a bit differently. I am against censorship in most cases, but I draw the line at deliberate personal attacks by unknown guests. And I would feel the same even if it wasn't someone I knew. What possible value can there be in this kind of "freedom of expression"? It seems I was right. You ARE enjoying all this. What does that say about you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Shambles Date: 10 Jun 04 - 08:41 AM I am not saying that it should. But because of this, it would seem to me that any comment COULD indeed find a home on this forum. This by simply encouraging all posters to either post to agree, post to disagree or simply to ignore. Accepting that there is no one acceptable taste, but many. And by being encouraged to live and let live and to be tolerant, rather that encouraging us to be intolerant and judgmental. Rather than simply being encouraged to ignore posts they do not like - the following from The Mudcat Help Forum,- is an example of what posters are being encouraged to think is the thing to do here. The poster in question here has opened the offending (BS) thread (at least) twice and has made two posts to 'snitcher's corner' in their determination to get a thread deleted. And in the process, is making sure that everybody else has a good chance to be as offended as they are. Rather than just ignoring it and simply letting it die. The posts on this thread have quickly exceeded the 3 posts referred to, which I am sure will delight the original guest poster, the complainent and the volunteer who gets to finally judge or delete it...... http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=2597&messages=2 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 10 Jun 04 - 02:23 AM In view of some very recent personal experiences with a couple of threads of mine, including Joke Threads, Shambles, I think your theories about Control Freaks now quietly having assumed charge of the Discordian Asylum called The Mudcat are right. I am now on your side buddy! Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 09 Jun 04 - 07:10 PM Well, Shambles, from the accumulated wisdom of the last few posts, looks like we were both right! Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Shambles Date: 09 Jun 04 - 11:28 AM Over time folk do change their views of course - but this is what Max (the site owner) posted on the 26 Oct 99. RE: Explain the BS rules 26 Oct 99 Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Shambles Date: 09 Jun 04 - 02:18 AM The abolition of slavery in the UK was thought to be a 'dead horse' but William Wiberforce carried on for 18 years, until the (dead) horse got up and ran. Look forward to the next 18 years of me 'flogging a dead horse' on our forum. *Smiles* And Robin, the records are usually crap to begin with - our forum is not, However should the process of deleting post continue or increase as you suggest, the forum probably will be crap then, when it becomes a hit with the masses! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Jun 04 - 06:55 PM Blackcatter I agree with your post of 08 Jun 04 - 03:43 PM but WRT, "It is well-established that the best promotion for a crap pop record in the UK and to ensure that everyone buys it, is to get it banned, with much publicity by our BBC" is this deleting of posts why the Mudcat is getting more popular? Delete away! :-) Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: Blackcatter Date: 08 Jun 04 - 06:19 PM Well, we certainly disagree on this issue. You can call it unfair and get everyone to agree with you, but it is like beating a dead horse - maybe beating it can make someone feel better, but it won't change the fact that it's dead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Shambles Date: 08 Jun 04 - 05:02 PM Why do you think that a privately funded and managed forum like the Mudcat has to be a home for every comment? I am not sure that I do think that, but why do you think this forum should not be a home for every comment, if it can do this? Max has issued an invitation for the public to contribute and has set aside part of his privately funded and managed website, for this purpose. Jeff has provided a means by which threads on music related subjects can be made separate from those started on other subjects. I am not saying that it should. But because of this, it would seem to me that any comment COULD indeed find a home on this forum. This by simply encouraging all posters to either post to agree, post to disagree or simply to ignore. Accepting that there is no one acceptable taste, but many. And by being encouraged to live and let live and to be tolerant, rather that encouraging us to be intolerant and judgmental. Max's kind invitation to the public should be honoured by us all. The forum sometimes feels like a party where the dress code has been changed from the one on the invitation, half-way through by some other guests. This change may not be appearent to later arrivals to the party.... But if say, for some reason, it is not thought that a home can be found on our forum for every comment - a clear and consistent means of making this known should have been found from the very start- but with the deletion of contributions, the very last measure to be considered. This for a number of very good reasons. Most important, I think that given Max's invitation, the deletion of a poster's contribution, agaist their will and without their knowledge, by anyone else but Max himself, is a really big thing. It should not be taken as lightly as it currently is and should only be used as a last resort. For action is counter-productive and the creation in secret of team of unknown volunteer posters to judge other posters is plainly divisive and out of all proportion to the size of the problem. Lets use an example of what happens now, in the case of the thread called 'Deleted post'. Because this poster's contibution was deleted as a matter of routine by a volunteer, with no warning or explanation, they understandably, then started a thread to ask why. From this point, the deleted post/thread which not many of us would have seen or would have simply ignored if we did open it, is now of great interest to many. The supposed harm that it was deleted to protect us from, is now spread far and wide. It is well-established that the best promotion for a crap pop record in the UK and to ensure that everyone buys it, is to get it banned, with much publicity by our BBC. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: Bill D Date: 08 Jun 04 - 04:00 PM Blackcatter, that is a fine statement of the situation.....though I suspect it will fall on deaf ears in some quarters. ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Shambles Date: 08 Jun 04 - 04:00 PM Great idea, Bruce. It's an idea we've been talking about. I'm sure you'll see a change in thread tags soon. -Joe Offer- Whether a change is wanted or not Rupert, I'm sure, after reading the above, that a change is going to happen. However this change may not be to the one suggested and well-reasoned in the first post and the one that we are talking about here. But of course, that is not the same 'we' as Joe refers to. Although I would expect that any compulsory aspect will be willingly accepted into this comming change in thread tags. However, I do not expect this change will be a simple choice between two clear options. Perhaps we can be informed what form this change to the thread tags is set to take - or must this be a surprise? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: GUEST,Blackcatter Date: 08 Jun 04 - 03:43 PM As far as I'm concerned guests who are new to Mudcat should refrain from starting non-music related threads until they learn about the place. It seems a fair amount of our true crap around here is created by people who drop in and vomit their political or social agenda all over the place and then leave. Remindes me of the way my church used ot have questions after the sermon. Someone new would get up ever few weeks and start rambling on about a subject that they were concerned about, but which had little or nothing to do with the subject at hand. Because everyone else is polite, we would let them go on, they would eventually stop and we would get back to the topic at hand. And Shambles - I respect you a great deal but you and others who have issues with deleted posts and such around here never seem to answer the question I have asked numerous times: Why do you think that a privately funded and managed forum like the Mudcat has to be a home for every comment? This is not the Speakers Corner in Hyde Park, It's not a street corner in my city of Orlando, where I can go and say whatever I wish to say. That the owners/managers allow ANY debate on this site is up to them. I have a rather popular website and do not have a public forum because I don't want public discussion. I still get numerous emails with people making suggestions, 99.9% of which I totally ignore, because it's my website and I know what I want on it. Max, etal, have clearly decided what they want, and while it might change occasionally (even if is changes minute to minute) that's their perogative. We are using the Mudcat only because they are letting us do so. There is no "right" involved. Those websites I've visited that are not to my liking, don't get a repeat visit. Sometimes I share with the hosts why I don't like the site (which IS my and your right) but they can ignore me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Jun 04 - 07:32 AM I think semi-submersible may be on to something if change is really wanted.... |
|
Subject: Breeze-Shooting From: semi-submersible Date: 08 Jun 04 - 06:22 AM Suppose the check boxes be marked "Music-related" and "Non-music (Breeze Shooting)." Or how about separate links at the top of the Forum page: Create a New Thread (Start a new topic): [clicky] Music-related, or [clicky] Non-music/Breeze-Shooting. Either way will still encourage the casual topics to be labelled correctly - and forestall a whole new series of misunderstandings, when newcomers starting "Non-music" threads see their postings insultingly labelled "BS." Sometimes a euphemism is no bad thing. I recall an old saw about honey vs. vinegar... People who see this official definition at the top of the page, will still judge its worth for themselves. ;~) This is a special place, and I thank you for making it happen. One of Mudcat's wonderful features is freedom of expression. I agree with The Shambles that this is vital. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Jun 04 - 02:13 AM Those who think that the official explanation is that "BS" stands for "Breeze Shooting" are misguided. I left that post in the FAQ because I couldn't believe anybody would take it seriously. BS means "bullshit," dontchaknow. If there is anything Mudcat is not, it's euphemistic. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: Doug Chadwick Date: 08 Jun 04 - 01:54 AM Bull-shit means garbage/rubbish/crap to the English-English speakers,................ I think the official explanation is that "BS" stands for "Breeze Shooting". Yes, but the content, for the most part, is bull-shit (in the English-English sense). Doug C |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Shambles Date: 07 Jun 04 - 07:10 PM I have no wish to have this thread or any other one, focus on me. But perhaps a little explanation for my determination on this matter is required. Perhaps then the original idea or the change that is to be imposed, can be addressed? Since four years ago, when my friend was threatened with a £20,000 fine or 6 months in prison for simply allowing us to make music in his pub. I have been rather involved in trying to ensure that such actions are not repeated and not tolerated. During this period I have heard just about every conceivable reason from higly skilled experts why (needless) restrictions must be placed upon basic rights. Rights that have been so hard-won. This forum has been of great help in that struggle but reading exactly the same justifications given here for the same (needless) restrictions, is not going to be accepted by me, without a determined attempt to address it. A little help would be appreciated, as I would appear to be a lone (and portrayed as a loony) voice. I may well be, but i try to ensure that my points are made as well as I can make them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: MudGuard Date: 07 Jun 04 - 02:36 PM about this subject? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: GUEST,MMario Date: 07 Jun 04 - 02:14 PM no sue, Shambles is just a little monomaniacal about this subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: SueB Date: 07 Jun 04 - 02:10 PM Oh. Now I get it. This is what is meant by "Don't feed the Shambles." LOL! Sorry, all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Shambles Date: 07 Jun 04 - 01:44 PM So let's not get our knickers in a twist, or our shorts in a knot over issues of free speech and censorship - that isn't what this is about. If you want to start a thread about THOSE issues, feel free - but be sure to label it BS. (Or Non-Music, if the term BS offends you, for pete's sake.) 'Gulp'! The only twisted knickers would appear to be yours. And you would also appear to have the corncob that you see up the butt of others, well and truly stuck up your own, to add to your discomfort. Not, I would suggest, a posture that will contribute to much clear thinking. What you think is relevant to this thread is your opinion to which you are perfectly welcome to express anywhere. What I think this idea is about, in my opinion, is to reduce exactly the sort of judgements you are showing here, about what belongs where and the actions taken as a result of them. Which of us is right or if both of us are wrong, matters not a jot. It is the exchange of different views that is important and that we show enough respect to conduct this exchange without resorting to personal abuse and judgement. This sort of judgement on the worth of other people's posts and where these should appear, seems and is encouraged, so that it is rapidly becoming the only game in town. This obsession with order, what is on-topic and what should be posted where and why, threatens to overshadow that the important thing is that folk are encouraged to contribute. It was an issue that many of us thought sorted here a long time ago and one that this thread is trying to address. If you agree with a view expressed in a thread, and post to do this, fine. If you disagree, and you post to do this, that is also fine. You can just also just ignore it - that is also fine. What and where others choose to post - is a matter only for them. The idea suggested in the original post will just mean a simple choice between one side of the forum or another and if implemented, should certainly help to get us back to encouraging each other to contribute. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 07 Jun 04 - 01:44 PM I think it was Gurney who said: I just don't like the heading. Bull-shit means garbage/rubbish/crap to the English-English speakers, not rabbiting/nattering/conversation as it seems to to American-English speakers. (I'm assuming that is what BS is an acronym for.) I think the official explanation is that "BS" stands for "Breeze Shooting". Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: SueB Date: 07 Jun 04 - 01:29 PM Just another two cents worth, and then I'm done. The Mudcat Cafe is a wonderful community, provides a tremendous service, and is absolutely free. It is quietly administered by people who contribute gobs of their own time and money out of the goodness of their hearts. They're not enforcers, they're facilitators, and to suggest that anybody around here is being *imposed* upon is quite frankly ludicrous, in my opinion. So if they DO create a mechanism which requires people to be more precise in how they label their threads, I for one am going to assume that it's because they're sincerely hoping to improve the service they provide and make things run more smoothly. It's a technical issue, not a philosophical one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: SueB Date: 07 Jun 04 - 10:19 AM What did I miss? The proposal has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with making it harder for people to start a thread without labeling it properly, so that the people who are already walking around with a corncob up their butts don't have an aneurysm when they open a thread not labeled BS that maybe should have been. I don't think it's necessary, and I don't think the proposed change will have the desired effect, but that's just my opinion, and if the Powers That Be decide to try it, it's no skin off my nose. So let's not get our knickers in a twist, or our shorts in a knot over issues of free speech and censorship - that isn't what this is about. If you want to start a thread about THOSE issues, feel free - but be sure to label it BS. (Or Non-Music, if the term BS offends you, for pete's sake.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: The Shambles Date: 07 Jun 04 - 05:26 AM I don't mind the level of censorship that is exercised here. No one really minds lightning too much either - as long as it does not strike them. When you state this, are you aware of what the level of censorship exercised here actually is? Or if any censorship is really required? I take it that you have read the thread that I linked to and consider that this censorship and its justification there to be of a level that is acceptable as being proportionate and necessary? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: BS / Non-BS Suggestion From: Gurney Date: 07 Jun 04 - 04:33 AM I LIKE the BS section. I just don't like the heading. Bull-shit means garbage/rubbish/crap to the English-English speakers, not rabbiting/nattering/conversation as it seems to to American-English speakers. (I'm assuming that is what BS is an acronym for.) I don't mind the level of censorship that is exercised here. |
