BS: What constitutes a bad post?

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Dec 04 - 04:59 PM

That said from both Freda and Jerry, and said very well IMO, we'll see what happens from here.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Dec 04 - 06:07 PM

Seems to work pretty well, so far as I can see.

The fact that we are still going around and around and these posts are still being responded to (in any way, including deleting them) and Joe contributes here and talks down to the rest of us in superior brown - partly as not to refresh threads like this one that he does not like - suggests that there may be something wrong with your vision.

If anyone really wants to post something that would be liable to get excised - for example a personal attack on somebody, or a bunch of racist remarks - all they need to do it stuck it up on a website of their own, and put a link to it in a post here. I very much doubt if that would get removed, so everyone could be happy. Total freedom to say what you want, and total freedom for anyone else to click on the link and read it.

This is the solution of course - why post anything on the Mudcat open discussion forum at all - why not use this suggested method for everything? Then the vandals with a little help from you and Joe - have won and Max's vision is lost..........

If you me and everyone else are free to ignore posts on another site - why can we not just do on this one and why can we all not be allowed to make that choice for ourselves here? Without Joe and his royal 'we' deciding for us?

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Dec 04 - 06:33 PM

Here, here, freda! I suppose if we're trying to be anywhere near democratic in here, then the will of most catters seems to be to accept, and at times even welcome some level of control from Joe.

Jerry - i appreciate your very good intentions, however.

The royal 'we' is the only 'we' that now appears to matter on this part of Max's site that is set aside for a forum for open public discussion forum.

This royal 'we' - has made it clear over many years that they are not making any claim that 'we' are a democracy in any degree. Most long-term contributors have accepted this long-ago and also accpeted that there is little point in making the good natured pretence.

Whether anyone should welcome any form of control from volunteer helpers like Joe is totally imaterial - as it is also made very clear that 'we' apparently have no choice. And as someone will now point out - if I don't like it I can go somwhere else.

Despite this control freakery that has been imposed upon this forum - but because of Max's original concept and the many fine contributors - this forum remains a fine place.

When the control freaks have finally succeded in making our forum ordered and ordinary - I may reconsider. Until then - the control freaks will just have to put up with comments from those who hold and express a different view.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 04 - 07:02 PM

"...this forum remains a fine place."

Seems to work pretty well, so far as I can see.

So basically we are agreed, Shambles.

There are people from time to time who wish to use the Mudcat to make racist posts, or post vicious lying attacks on vulnerable people, and that kind of stuff. When that happens, I am grateful when that posts like that get blocked. Sometimes, perhaps, posts get removed that really don't deserve it, but nothing's perfect in this world.

My suggestion about posting with a link indicates a way in which people who have their posts blocked, rightly or wrongly, can still have their say. They could even use it to find out if anyone else agreed with them that some post should not have been blocked or removed. I think that would be good enough for me, should that ever happen to a post I felt strongly about.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 04 - 07:51 PM

A bad post is a post that talks back. I saw a drunk having an argument with a telephone pole one time, and it seemed to be talking back to him. He could hear it anyway, although I couldn't.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: pdq
Date: 04 Dec 04 - 07:58 PM

termites

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Dec 04 - 09:39 PM

"...this forum remains a fine place."

Seems to work pretty well, so far as I can see.

So basically we are agreed, Shambles.

We do on many things but I'm not sure we do here. Am I wrong in thinking that your comment -
Seems to work pretty well, so far as I can see. was in response to the following in my post before it?

The only test of Joe's censorship and general tinkering undertaken under the banner of protecting us - from us - is if it works. As it obviously does not and you think the levels have gotten worse - why do you insist on defending it as an effective method?

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Dec 04 - 11:46 PM

Let me explain about my use of pronouns:

"I" means I did it - myself, alone, of my own accord.

"We" means it was done by more than one person, or done by an individual in consultation with others. Most Mudcat editorial decisions fall into this category.

"We" is never an individual. I never use the "royal we."

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 12:16 AM

The only test of Joe's censorship and general tinkering undertaken under the banner of protecting us - from us - is if it works. As it obviously does not and you think the levels have gotten worse - why do you insist on defending it as an effective method?

It works, believe me, it works...one must also consider the numbers of members now as opposed to way back when this all started. As membership increases so do the postings, including the Mudcrap, which encourages more Mudcrappers...then before ya know the whole place is in the toilet but for Joe, Jeff, Max and the Clones.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 12:19 AM

So you'd rather I didn't refer to you in my correspondences with others at "His Lordship"???

;-D

Just joshing, Mr O. I know you'd eschew any Royal Confirmations as each good ol' Yankee should.


..xx..jez Miz Ellie to ma friends

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 12:20 AM

A bad post is one that has too damn much spearmint stuck onto it.

Art Thieme
(P.S.----and all the stuff did lose it's flavor from sitting there all night long.)

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 02:41 AM

Let me explain about my use of pronouns:
"I" means I did it - myself, alone, of my own accord.

"We" means it was done by more than one person, or done by an individual in consultation with others. Most Mudcat editorial decisions fall into this category.

"We" is never an individual. I never use the "royal we."

The interesting, sad and most telling point - is that the words 'we' or 'I' used by you - never appears to mean 'us' anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 02:42 AM

The proverbial "we"... which I have to take right now....

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 05:49 AM

Joe's "we" means Jerry Rasmussen and many others of us. I'm sorry it doesn't mean "you," Shambles.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 06:16 AM

A bad post is one that is sticky, such that as one passes it one's clothing adheres to said post and must be tugged violently in order to get loose. This can happen for a number of reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 07:08 AM

Joe's "we" means Jerry Rasmussen and many others of us. I'm sorry it doesn't mean "you," Shambles.

You don't sound all that sorry that Joe's 'we' does not include me, but seem quite happy as long as it includes you.

But as I said - it is a shame that Joe's 'we' never appears to mean 'us' anymore and that this further division and yet more exclusion is thought by anyone to be necessary on a public forum, when the object of all this censorship is supposed to be for the benefit all of 'us'.

Jerry does one become part of Joe's 'we' only by always being in complete agreement with everything Joe may say or do and how do I now join and become part of Joe's 'we' - along with you?

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 09:40 AM

"We" bears the same relation to "us" as "I" does to "me".

It's all to do with the grammatical structure of the English language.

The thing is, I occasionally we see posts that had better been deleted, but I don't see these deleted posts that shouldn't have been deleted. I think that probably appllies to most of us who congregate around the Mudcat watering hole. Maybe there really are lots of these unfairly excised posts, as Shambles seems asserts from time to time to time and again.         

It seems to me an excellent way to settle this would be for him to set up a website where they can be made available for people to examine at leisure. Simple, elegant and effective.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 10:24 AM

I never thought of it as 'superior brown'. I'm not sensitive to that sort of thing though. I figure anybody can use any color they want to, and you wouldn't want people mistaking what Joe said for what the poster said when Joe replies in a post...which I'm also not sensitive too, by the way.

Shambles sez:
"The interesting, sad and most telling point - is that the words 'we' or 'I' used by you - never appears to mean 'us' anymore."

Is this, in fact, NOT a song by Neil Diamond? Does it not go something like:

It's a sad and telling point
My heart, this day, is sore
That 'you' and 'I' when used by you--
I've seen the clue, I know it's true,
I'm blue too, and I do rue--
You don't mean 'us' no more.

Now, what's the rest of it?

Seriously, I'm bored by the usual pointless excuse for verbosity, and hyper-defensive control-freakoutery and molehill mountainization. Quibbling about pronoun use and font colors is still pointless, but at least it's a bit different.

Us enjoy this difference, and us thank you for the shift.

As far as deletions not working, I used to work in Public Health and disease intervention was a big thing. Someone had a communicable disease, and we got involved to prevent the spread. You likely would have said we were ineffective, since we still had cases of the disease. We couldn't have proved you wrong, since there was no way to know what was prevented, and therefore, didn't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 10:34 AM

Nice, but can you do candy-striped, like a barber pole?

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 10:37 AM

waht you writingf in diffrent colours for then?

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 10:45 AM

I believe Jeri's public health analogy is right on. Hear, hear!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 10:51 AM

Maybe I should make comments in puce. Anybody know how to do puce?
Batman's suit is puce, and sometimes I feel like Batman.
If I had been Batman, I wouldn't have let Nicole Kidman slip away.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 11:12 AM

I thought Batman's suit was black.

LH, I could, but it would take way too much time.

jOhn: because.

Joe, Jeez. Just type 'puce' instead of 'brown'.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 12:02 PM

Of course the colour of a conventional posting is not at issue.

The point is that a conventional posting will bring the thread back up to the top. An insertion (usually in brown) for Joe to make his judgement and 'editorial' comments - will not do this.

This is not an ability open to all of 'us'.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 04:43 PM

Day 1 and not a nasty thing said to a soul.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Once Famous
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 06:28 PM

I think Batman is gay.

cocksucker.    (whispered)

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 07:25 PM

Hey, I thought puce was a light purple color.

Now, Brucie, maybe this will help you: I have to work really hard to ignore Shambles, because if I respond to Shambles, Jeri will bop me upside the head....

So for every time I slip and respond to Shambles, you can slip and respond to a troll (but then Jeri will bop you upside the head, too - and she'll probaby bop me, too, just for good measure).

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 07:28 PM

No slips for nine days. She bopped me up the head once and that was the end of that. Remains so to this day and will for the future. However, I shant slip. A promise is a promise.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 08:00 PM

by coincidence, I just happened on a website today which allows Mozilla Firefox users to refer to colors ....http://www.andreabinello.com/resources/webcolornames/

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 08:00 PM

I'm flattered that you guys live in fear of me and my head bopping skills! Joe, you're the control freakazoid around here. If you're going to do the dictator thing, then you're responsible if brucie or anyone else slips and you get bopped.

Also, Joe, 'light purple' is lavender, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 08:03 PM

unfortunately, Puce is not listed

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 08:05 PM

but I believe this is puce...

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 08:21 PM

"you're responsible if brucie or anyone else slips"

I don't break my word. I will be cool for nine days.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 08:24 PM

My dictionary says puce is dark or brownish purple, but Bill's puce is more the color I envision. But hey, if it ain't in the Crayola basic 8 colors, I really can't tell one color from another. I've worn bottle-green and navy blue and dark brown pants for years before I discovered they weren't black. I always make sure The Missus double-checks what I'm wearing before we get into the car, so she won't make us late sending me back to change clothes.
They seem to match perfectly to me, but women always seem to think otherwise.

Oh, and Bruce - I'm on the don't-respond-to-Shambles prohibition for a lifetime. Why shouldn't your interdict last just as long? jeri's gonna get ya.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Dec 04 - 09:53 PM

hey!...I just went looking for a 'color selector' and found this little beauty!

It will allow you to determine the RGB of any color you see, OR to move the sliders around till you find a color you like!...and lots more... what fun...post in colors no one else uses..*grin*
if you want it, and want to avoid the 6 step download from sourceforge. here is the download link

http://internap.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/colorselector/cs3.zip

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Dec 04 - 02:16 AM

As far as deletions not working, I used to work in Public Health and disease intervention was a big thing. Someone had a communicable disease, and we got involved to prevent the spread. You likely would have said we were ineffective, since we still had cases of the disease. We couldn't have proved you wrong, since there was no way to know what was prevented, and therefore, didn't happen.

We are not talking here about measures to prevent disease from spreading. If we were the focus would be on encouraging folk (mainly by example) not to respond. And that is a positive measure I fully support and have encouraged for many years.

The measure of deleting contributions only after they appear, have done their 'damage' and been brought to our volunteer's attention for subsequent deletion can not be considered as a measure to prevent anything. It is prbably more akin to surgery. Which is sometimes used to prevent the spread of a disease or infection in an idividual case - but on its own, does litte to generally prevent the disease itself.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Dec 04 - 03:56 AM

"We" means it was done by more than one person, or done by an individual in consultation with others. Most Mudcat editorial decisions fall into this category.

Can I request that to avoid confusion - that any future editorial insertions (in what ever colour chosen) are confined to the above....[I was going to say 'brown editorial insertions' - but that       sounded more than a little crude and perhaps just like another way of saying 'bullshit'?]

If this convention is always followed - that will leave our volunteers free to use 'I' or indeed 'we or 'us' in conventional postings that do bring the thread back to the top. This convention will then always make it clear, when opinions expressed by our volunteers, are their own personal ones and which (after proper consultation) will always have full editorial weight behind them.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Dec 04 - 11:43 AM

Jeri can do as she chooses. That's her call. My was to be cool for eight more days, and then I see.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: GUEST,waiting for just one person to grow up
Date: 06 Dec 04 - 02:02 PM

"and then I see"

Brucie, you're like a child saying "I'm gonna be good for ten days, and if everybody doesn't change as well by then, well...you're all gonna DESERVE IT if I get nasty again. SO THERE!"

Advice; just grow up, stop getting pissed off at other people. It's about YOU being mature, not daring everyone else to be.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Dec 04 - 02:04 PM

Thank you so much for your advice--whoever you are.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Dec 04 - 02:06 PM

Of course, without knowing the 'quality' or 'character' of the person posting, I shan't be able to evaluate your advice. So, as I said, I'll see. Thank you again.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Dec 04 - 02:11 PM

"Brucie, you're like a child saying "I'm gonna be good for ten days, and if everybody doesn't change as well by then, well...you're all gonna DESERVE IT if I get nasty again. SO THERE!"

Who are you? Do you have a name? Do you lack the courage of your convictions? That is, do you just say things without admitting to having said them and because your words are wise expect compliance? Huh. Interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 04 - 03:37 PM

A touch of irritation there, brucie...

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: GUEST,waiting for just one person to grow up
Date: 06 Dec 04 - 03:49 PM

Man, talk about falling on deaf ears!

"do you just say things without admitting to having said them and because your words are wise expect compliance?"

If there's any wisdom in there for you, isn't that enough?

I'm a mudcat regular who just doesn't want the "wrath of brucie" to follow me around, but really needed to say what I said.

You're a good bloke brucie, when you're not on a roll. But it doesn't take much to get you on a roll.

But don't worry, you're not alone. I just thought you might be open to the idea of real change. It has to start with someone..but not with a ten day ultimatum.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Dec 04 - 03:53 PM

How about it starts with you, whoever you are.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Dec 04 - 03:58 PM

You presume to lecture me but do not have the decency to say who you are. Talk the talk but not walk the walk. Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: GUEST,waiting for just one person to grow up
Date: 06 Dec 04 - 04:00 PM

This is just what I mean.

Ah well. People don't change until they're ready to change.

I'm done.

Good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Dec 04 - 04:00 PM

Kevin,

Not irritation. Maybe more a disappointment. Reminds me of kids who decide to tease someone to see if they'll get a reaction. What does that say about the people involved? You may read whatever you wish into what I said; I notice you have anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Dec 04 - 08:49 PM

My suggestion about posting with a link indicates a way in which people who have their posts blocked, rightly or wrongly, can still have their say. They could even use it to find out if anyone else agreed with them that some post should not have been blocked or removed. I think that would be good enough for me, should that ever happen to a post I felt strongly about.

Well let's examine the logic of your suggestion of the use of other sites and turn it around a little.

Over time - many folk are attracted this particular open discussion forum. In my case it was refreshing to find a place where pedants did not hold sway, and where there were few if any rules imposed. The credit for this was mainly Max's but long-term contributors like Joe certainly helped to encourage this atmosphere - which in turn attracted more people and so on.

Over time - and for whatever reason. Disatisfaction is expressed by some which has now reached a point where we now find ourselves with hard-and fast rules and a ruling elite to impose their judgement upon everyone else (in order to protect us from us). There would also appear to be many who support this (not that they are given much choice) and seem to think that all this has something to do with the spirit that has made this forum the fine place - that despite all these fairly recent imposed measures - it still just about manages to be.

But it is time to accept that there IS only one direction that the forum is headed - towards more of this overt control, more rules, more needless division and more pedantic imposed judgement and not away from it. With the idea expressed of - well if you don't like (what 'we' have now turned it into) - you can go somewhere else or start your own site.

Perhaps those who find fault with most aspects of an open forum and who have now taken over control - those who make and impose the rules and judgement and who do not seem to like this open discussion forum to be a place where open discussion is tolerated and permitted to take place - and those that support all this - should really be the ones encouraged to start their own site?

One where the rules could be placed up-front and if they like - they can moan and introduce a new rule every day.

Let us get this straight - I (like many others) like this open discussion forum. I accept the downside of this openess and I do NOT moan about this. Perhaps those that do consantly moan and find fault with the freedom of Max's original concept (always so crucial to The Mudcat Forum) can please put all of their pedantry, control, judgement and moans - on another website and leave the rest of us alone?

If not - perhaps and for start - they can stop telling others to go away and work towards a return to the inclusive spirit that still struggles to survive on Max's and our - fine open discussion forum?

Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Dec 04 - 08:52 PM

What constitutes a bad post?

Probably one that wishes to pass judgement on a thread and it contributors - but is not brave enough to refresh the thread and put it back to the top.