In the UK......? (thread title change complaint)

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:50 AM

Both those changes noted there seem very sensible to me. And improvements on the original.

"Minister says Jamming is OK" goes to "Minister says jammimng is OK in the UK" - sounds better, as well as being more informative. Though struictly speaking it's wrong - the Minister in question wasn't talking about jamming in the context of "the UK", since the law involved doesn't apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

As for "Camilla and Charles were lovers" going to "Song Challenge: Camilla and Charles were lovers" - well it does start "I have made a start on the song - perhaps others would like to continue it?", and that makes it a Song Challenge on my book, whereas the other title rather invites people to leap in arguing about stuff.

Now if the clones started adding "Shambles special" to threads like that... Probably better not.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:59 AM

Kevin - these changes may also have been acceptable to me - had i been asked. Would it have really been too much trouble for those who imposed these changes - to have asked me first?

Perhaps from now on - our anonymous volunteer fellow posters can now always ensure that they always ask the originator first - just to make sure that any future imposed change always obtains Kevin McGrath's approval.

I suggest that no other poster's opinion (even Kevin's) really matters.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 10:13 AM

Though struictly speaking it's wrong - the Minister in question wasn't talking about jamming in the context of "the UK", since the law involved doesn't apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Unlike the rest of the post (from someone who does not judge this issue is important and posts many times to demonstrate this) - this is a good point and one I would have made - if I had been asked. Many posters have objected to the use of 'UK' in this regard as it is not accurate.

Perhaps it would be better and safer (if they intend to continue to impose such changes and in such cases without the originators knowledge or permission) for our anonymous volunteers to insert - 'not 'US'? As this is rather more the point that is being made by these sort of changes.........

But where do these sort of imposed changes (or additions) end? How many more such prefixes will be required - if we follow this example to its ultimate conclusion? Perhaps it is better to stop now?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST,Yawn
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 12:14 PM

Bit of a slow day, is it Shambles?

Why don't you go and do something useful, like pulling the wings off a few flies?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 03:18 PM

1 GUEST,Yawn   RE: In the UK..............?   23-Jul-05 - 12:14 PM
2 GUEST,Yawn   RE: Mudcat- Who is Who.   11-Jul-05 - 12:26 PM
3 GUEST,Yawn   RE: BS: For Real. I quit   21-Jun-05 - 10:02 AM
4 GUEST,Yawn   RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat   09-Jun-05 - 03:26 AM
5 GUEST,Yawn   RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat   01-Jun-05 - 06:17 AM

yawn.

Subject: "Hands off my thread!"
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 03:27 PM

I still can't see how starting a thread gives someone any particular rights over it. I mean in a conversation in a pub you wouldn't expect to have someone asserting their ownership rights in a discussion, on the grounds that they broached the topic in the first place.

I suppose, when we have started a thread, we may take a certain parental interest in it, maybe nursing it along to make sure it stays around long enough to pull in participants, but that's not the same thing.

Sometimes you do see people here who seem to think that having started a thread means they have the ability to pull the plug on it when they think it's run its course, or deviated too widely from where it was intended to go, but it rarely works. Why should it?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:13 PM

To Give Away: a Kitten

Clone: May we add your location to the title?

Me: No.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:18 PM

Send the cat to Robomatic. His fridge quit and he needs food.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:21 PM

hahhahah

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:25 PM

Hi, Ebbie. Hope yer well. Saw the thread about when people feel the most alive. I'll post to it soon.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:26 PM

Sorry. That was thread drift. But, from the Zen of threads--can a directionless thread drift?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:26 PM

. . . or not?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:37 PM

Policy seems clear-- as with any publication, management reserves the right to edit for clarity. Recourse is to be privately discussed via PM with main site admin-- Joe Offer. Starting a fresh town meeting every time one's nose is out of joint-- DID YOU FIRST FOLLOW THE POLICY and PM Joe, Shambles?

~Susan

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 07:27 PM

DID YOU FIRST FOLLOW THE POLICY and PM Joe, Shambles?

Reserving the right to do something is just that. Anonymous fellow posters imposing it upon their fellow posters as a first option and as a matter now of routine - is something quite different and a perfectly legitimate matter for public discussion.

I and many others have been contributing to the part of Max's website that he has set aside for public discussion long before all of Joe's personal dislikes - the introduction of 'guests' - anonymous censors - more bloody prefixes than most junkies - and all the other recently introduced Orwellian sillyness........

If you wish to go along with the increasing protocols that Snowball, Napoleon and the rest of the pigs have introduced since they feel they have taking over the running and all aspects of Animal Farm - feel free to do so.

Susan - I will stick with good old Boxer and the values that have made this forum a special place and which others now seem determined to turn into something very ordinary.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Bert
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:04 PM

Oooh wow. There's a lot going on here.

First Shambles and Katlaughing and Wolfgang and just about everybody posting here. No not just about - EVERY SINGLE PERSON posting here, I consider to be a dear friend. So my opinion is based on the issue involved and is not personal in any way.

The issue is that Shambles has been targetted for editing by one particular elf.

So if that particular elf would BACK OFF AND LEAVE HIM ALONE then the problem will go away.

I will also state that I consider the elf in question to be a dear friend. So it is not a personal thing. Now Elf in question just take it easy and let Shambles and all the rest of us have their say without interference - PLEASE

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:13 PM

It seems to be always a slow day for Shambles

Here Roger, I'll save you the bother Click

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 09:50 PM

Bert, I'm not sure whether that comment about being friends with folks was supposed to sound sincere, coming as it was right before you took Shambles side without question. What the heck SPECIFICALLY are you talking about with regards to 'one particular elf'?

As far as him being singled out, it's bullshit. He's very dedicated to complaining and he's quick on the trigger. And other people who've started threads that had their titles<ammended don't seem toosee those titles as their personal property the way Roger seems to. This 'UK' and 'US' thing has been going on for as long as I've been here. I alluded to that earlier, but it doesn't seem you noticed.

There was an addition to this thread title. I've added 'UK's and "US's, although I usually add the town/city for US places because while there may be one Portsmouth, UK, there is a Portsmouth, NH, USA and a Portsmouth VA, USA and probably more than that. I've seen other people add more specific information to titles

Shambles is basically<out to get Joe and the volunteers. If you're going to believe whatever he says even though it makes some of your 'friends' look like<bigoted, hateful, small-minded<creeps, and would, in most other situations, prompt people to look for some facts and ask questions, you're probably going to have listen to some hurt 'friends'.

For the record people who<read threads and<their titles have<a right to understand. They have a right to comprehensability, clarity and accuracy, and<thread titles are not the originator's intellectual property.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: IvanB
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 11:16 PM

Shambles, you certainly may have had no intent to "lure" anybody in with a less than clear title, but, face it, that can be exactly the effect whether desired or not. As Jeri has mentioned above, readers of threads have some rights as well. And, I'd submit, one of those rights is not to have to waste their time even opening those threads in which they have no interest.

As for seeing the thread's original title very quickly, yes, I clicked on it shortly after the post was made and noted in the same Mudcat session that it had been changed, in my estimation for the better. Interestingly enough, I continue to read the thread because I am interested in what's happening regarding the PEL's. Perhaps, had I not seen the original when I did, I might be more inclined to open the thread because of the modified title, since I'm not often interested in the doings of fundamentalist preachers even when they manage to get something right.

I understand your devotion to your cause. But, I submit, you do your cause more harm than good by constantly berating those who work to provide you with a forum to spread your views. You would better spend your time choosing your battles wisely.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 11:35 PM

Ditto what Jeri said, ten times and more!

Bert, if you know which "elf" it was, why don't you discuss it with them by PM?

Still luvya,though...kat

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST,Yawn
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 12:05 AM

He's noticed :-)

But of course he's not taking the hint.....


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 07:52 AM

I understand your devotion to your cause. But, I submit, you do your cause more harm than good by constantly berating those who work to provide you with a forum to spread your views. You would better spend your time choosing your battles wisely.

The reference to my cause - I assume is to the music Licensing one (I have many). Those who have worked to provide a forum for this issue have not been constantly berated by me - whatever the impression that may be given by those anaonymous few who now feel themselves qualified to sit in judgement on their fellow posters. If anything - it is has been the other way around.

Max has always had my respect and gratitude for the real and positive impact that his creation and this forum has had and continues to have on what I see a vital issue for anyone interested in any music anywhere.

Max has not interferred with any of the many contributions from many very concerned posters on this issue over many years. But that is not to say that there has not been interferance and obstructions by others. This issue (for many reasons) has caused irritations with some posters and some of our volunteers did rather pander to these irritations rather than recognise the seriousness of the situation called for a more understanding view. These irritations - to my surprise became rather personalised and directed at me. In spite of the fact I always tried to do did what I could to take on board these irritations and do what I could to address them.

I think it fair to say that the main irritation reflected that many 'US' folk did not see it as an issue that directly affected them. It is also fair to say that many 'US' folk were (and are) very supportive and made many positive contributions - dispite the fact that the issue may not have affected them directly. I and many folk remain very grateful for this.

The nit-picking was to the effect that the threads were - too many - too long - not informative - duplicated - politically inspired - personal ego-trips and many other such irritations. Some of these criticisms may well have been valid - but my view is and was that the nature of the posting largely just reflected the nature of the problems this issue presented and also the structure of the forum. The fact that you can't please all of the people - all of the time - is one that can get overlooked - when everyone is being encouraged by the example of our anonoymous volunteers - to sit in judgement on everyone else.

Joe Offer's relations with me have never recovered from this. And the role of the anonymous volunteer also changed in this period - from helper to judge and censor My openly expressed view is that the role of any volunteer fellow poster is to follow Max's lead and only facilite. To enable all posting rather than to pass judgement and obstruct it. I fear that our forum is now more shaped by the personal preferences of unknown nunber of these anonymous volunteers - than it is by the preferences of the majority of contributors.

The point of this thead is to bring attention to a imposed censorship action that I have been needlessly subject to and to request that if any change is thought to be needed to a thread title that I have originated - that the volunteer concerned contact me first and that this is adopted as general practice.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:19 AM

My good friend Jeri said.

Bert, I'm not sure whether that comment about being friends with folks was supposed to sound sincere, coming as it was right before you took Shambles side without question.

I am grateful for Bert's contribution - as it does now appear to take courage on our forum to go against the general flow. However, this talk of taking sides is indicative of the needless divide (between friends) that now appears on our forum. When some animals become more equal than others (and rather choose to rub this fact in) it is as inevitable as it is sad.

Perhaps the taking of sides can be left behind us in the playground and we can just be free to express our own views and principles?

If it is a principle respected (so far anyway) that a post should appear as written - it is a simple request that this principle and respect be extended to a thread's title. Or if any change is thought necessary - that the originator is always first consulted.

Subject: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:53 AM

There seems to be a lot going on right now, what with the recent bombs and the shooting of the innocent "suspect" and that. A lot that is serious and merits serious discussion.

I find it offensive therefore that Shambles starts a thread with such a title (similar to this one), misleading people that the thread is for discussion of these serious things, only to air once more his personal grievances.

I request that Shamble's thread title be changed appropriately.

Subject: BS: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:54 AM

There seems to be a lot going on right now, what with the recent bombs and the shooting of the innocent "suspect" and that. A lot that is serious and merits serious discussion.

I find it offensive therefore that Shambles starts a thread with such a title (similar to this one), misleading people that the thread is for discussion of these serious things, only to air once more his personal grievances.

I request that Shamble's thread title be changed appropriately.

Subject: BS: In the UK.............?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:56 AM

Any good festivals? I am thinking of visiting this summer.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:12 AM

.... sounds like a cue for a song...

Got a relevant one hidden away there, Shambles?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:13 AM

... actually, why don't you put your grieviences into verse?

Prose isn't your best medium.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:43 AM

A Song For Mudcatters.

Just another singer
With just another guitar
It don't matter what you want to be
It only matters who you are
I look forward to that day
And I hope it won't be long
When we all get to sing the same song

We can sing it it high and we can sing it low
We can sing it fast and we can sing it slow
I look forward to that day
And I hope it won't be long
When we all get to sing the same song

We come from many countries
We are both old and young
We may all come from many faiths
But the singing makes us one
I look forward to that day
And I hope it won't be long
When we all get to sing the same song

We can sing it it high and we can sing it low
We can sing it fast and we can sing it slow
I look forward to that day
And I hope it won't be long
When we all get to sing the same song

We have different views
That's the way it'll always be
It don't matter who's right or wrong
We'll just agree to disagree
I look forward to that day
And I hope it won't be long
When we all get to sing the same song

We can sing it it high and we can sing it low
We can sing it fast and we can sing it slow
I look forward to that day
And I hope it won't be long
When we all get to sing the same song

It may come as a struggle
It maybe just a breeze
You may sing like a croaking frog
Or the birds up in the trees
I look forward to that day
And I hope it won't be long
When we all get to sing the same song

We can sing it it high and we can sing it low
We can sing it fast and we can sing it slow
I look forward to that day
And I hope it won't be long
When we all get to sing the same song

Roger Gall 1999

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: JennyO
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:48 AM

Nice one Shambles. I like the sentiments!

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:10 AM

Congratulations Roger! A new low!!! This is the dumbest fuckin' shit yet! A simple matter of clarification which hurts no one is now your reason for being! Actually it's just another diatribe about Joe and the Clones (who ARE NOT to the best of my knowledge volunteers....they were all recruited). I gotta' tell ya' that almost any other forum I know of would have flushed this entire thread by this point. Be thankful this joint is as open and laid back as it is and quit harping on these nonsensical non-problems.

So listen.......I was considering starting a thread to discuss your penis and testicles and I don't want to have any problems with the title so should it be Shambles' Cock & Balls or Shambles' Dick and Nuts? I'm also wondering if I need to tag on Worldwide to get the most response or to get the responses by area and in that case start three threads or maybe 6. Maybe I'll just title it:

Shambles; Pathetic Broke-Dick Mamalucca, Anywhere and Anytine

Spaw

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST,khandu
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:39 AM

I am with The Shambles on this one.

A couple of years back, I created a thread regarding a certain troll. Within moments, Pene Azul pmed me and explained that he believed this thread would probably do far more harm than good and requested permission to delete it.

Certainly, he could have deleted it without bothering to ask. But Jeff showed more class than that.

The simple act of contacting me beforehand made all the difference in the world. I told him to delete it and I felt rather good about it all.

Had he or anyone else deleted it without contact, I would have been pissed and would have posted a grumbling thread about it.

Simple decency goes a long way.

Change my thread titles? Sure, if you believe there is a good reason. But show some civility and respect to the creator of the thread by sending a simple PM.

khandu

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 10:52 AM

It's apples and oranges Ken. Jeff was dealing with a serious problem with a troll and trying his best to rid the place of the troll without any more ruckus than necessary. This is about simple clarification changes to make things easier.

Actually what this is about is Shambles' long running vendetta against Joe and the Clones....simple as that. Once again I would ask him this:

SHAMBLES.....HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS WITH MAX?

Spaw

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST,Yawn
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 11:09 AM

Of course he hasn't, Spaw. He doesn't want to do that because he knows what Max would say - and then he couldn't justify his whinge to us about Joe and the clones.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 11:17 AM

READ MY LIPS, FOLKS:

IT WAS NOT CHANGED NOR CENSORED! IT WAS ADDED TO!!!

NO censorship or Shambles wouldn't still be posting.

Roger, as to none of us giving a damn in the US. If you google my name, one of the first things that comes up is my posting of support for your "cause" to a site in England for which you had provided a link. If you look back at the original thread on PEL, you will find many US folks posted support and interest.

I do NOT have any vendetta against you...for heaven's sake you are the only other person I know with whom I share an exact birthdate! I love your songs and have said so many times. As a joe clone I do not have the time nor energy or desire to sit here, hunkered down with malice aforethought looking for ways to "get you" or anyone else. Good grief!

kat - "recruited" joe clone

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST,khandu
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 11:26 AM

Yes, I agree, Spaw; it is apples and oranges. The "apple" was my example of the thread deletion, the "orange" is The Shambles' title change.

But this can fall under "fruit" , the editing of threads.

I do understand the "clarification changes to make things easier". Personally, I would have no objection to clarification being added to my titles. I think a simple act of respect (prior notice via PM) from the editor is not beyond reason.

I am aware of The Shambles' "long running vendetta against Joe and the Clones" to which The Shambles' could respond, saying it is "long running vendetta against The Shambles' by Joe and the Clones".

In my opinion, there have been many threads that had/have titles that could be made clearer that have gone unedited. I have seen some (Other that Roger's) that have been "Clarified", but it does seem that Roger's posts draw more attention from the editors.

I am not a part of this "vendetta", whichever way it comes, nor will I be.

I maintain what I said earlier "Simple decency goes a long way".

A PM, prior to editing, is simple decency.

ken

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 01:35 PM

IT WAS NOT CHANGED NOR CENSORED! IT WAS ADDED TO!!!

Whatever the CHANGE was - to the original thread title - the point is that the CHANGE was imposed by some anonymous fellow poster - without the named originator's knowledge or permission.

For a start - it seems pretty obvious that the respectful thing to do to any contribution invited by Max to the public discussion forum on his website - would be for any third party (no matter how well-intentioned) to either leave the thread title as posted or contact the originator and ask them for their thoughts on any proposed change.

Perhaps we can leave all of the other issues aside - and just concentrate on the reasons why it is so difficult for our anonymous volunteers to (or try to) consult the originator privately if any change is thought necessary to the thread title and why our anonymous volunteers consider that such changes always need to be imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission?

Is this really too much to ask - when our volunteers now seem expect that any concern from us should be sent in a personal message to them (or to Max)?

Mutual respect online - and the attempt to reflect the poster's wishes - has been I think a quality that our forum has been a fine example of. If this mutual respect is to be retained - and our (currently anonymous) volunteers wish to be appreciated and respected by all for their efforts - perhaps some more respect needs to be shown by them to all of the rest of the forum's contributors (whatever the volunteers personal feelings may be towards individual posters)?

A good start would be to perhaps present these fellow posters with a choice now of continuing to be a volunteer but NOT continuing to remain anonymous.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 02:37 PM

Mudelf,

I guess you wanted to transfer one of the other three 'In the UK' threads up to here and not this one.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST,615
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 03:02 PM

Have you tried contacting Max directly about these issues Roger ? Did you get any response ?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 03:20 PM

It seems a rather sensible change to me.

Indeed all threads that concern law or social norms might benefit from clarity about jurisdiction, and certainly offers of a kitten too.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: khandu
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 04:07 PM

The discussion is not about whether it was a "sensible" change. The change was made without any discussion with the originator.

A simple PM could have made a big difference and possibly prevented this whole controversy.

k

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 08:19 PM

A simple PM could have made a big difference and possibly prevented this whole controversy.

I entirely agree with this point but the issue still rather turns on the factor of our volunteers wishing to be and permitted to be anonymous. For it would hardly be possible for an anonymous volunteer to remain anonymous - if they sent a PM to the thread's orgriginator.

I really cannot have any personal squabble with someone whose identity remains unknown to me - but does anyone really consider that the anonymous volunteer who insisted is so quickly imposing this particular change to this thread title - was entirely unaware that their action may cause controversy?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:37 PM

87 posts to an idiotic thread. What a frigging waste of bandwidth!

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:43 PM

If you did your research, Roger, you'd find that MANY of the clones, including me, have been upfront about who we are from the get-go. But, of course, that wouldn't support your argument, would it, so why bother. Only if it serves your convoluted minutiae.

I suppose if you didn't like the way a garment you'd donated to charity was hung on a hangar, you'd want to complain to THE anonymous volunteer who dared to drape it in the wrong way, instead of the public manager. Arse-backward...imo.

A while back someone suggested you be made a joe clone. There may be some sweet irony/justice in that.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:13 AM

If you did your research, Roger, you'd find that MANY of the clones, including me, have been upfront about who we are from the get-go. But, of course, that wouldn't support your argument, would it, so why bother. Only if it serves your convoluted minutiae.

Rather than having to research such things - perhaps then it would lift things a little if the names of those who are upfront were known to their fellow posters?

Those who have no problem with being known - will have no reason not to send a PM to ask the originator's permission before any proposed change to a thread title.

Those who choose to remain anonymous - will NOT be able to do this and remain anonymous. They will have to rely on those (like yourself)who are prepared to be known - to speak for them.

Perhaps in future - those who are still NOT prepared to be known and to stand by their actions - should NOT be able to impose their judgement upon the rest of their fellow posters who are prepared to be known and to stand by their actions?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:16 AM

That would mean no more guest posts.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:17 AM

No - the reference here was only to volunteer/clones/recruits who feel qualified to impose their judgement upon the fellow poster - but wish (and are permitted) to remain anonymous.

I suggest that it would however be a litle foolish to consider that - given the history of the 'guest' prefix on our forum - that any anonymous posting is ever to be thought as generally acceptable by the majority of posters - who are always prepared to be known and stand by their actions.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 06:54 AM

Roger, I would once again suggest you contact Max regarding your issues here. I would also suggest you read the following paragraph and consider it is used on most other message boards and forums of Mudcat's size and larger. Highlights are mine but read this and consider that it is what we could be using here. It would simplify all matters. We are fortunate that Max has not made the decision to go this route but try to believe me when I tell you that the possibility does exist. Threads like this one are immediately removed from these forums and anything which the UNKNOWN moderators and admin people decide to remove is done so with no notice given and no questions asked.

"You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to REMOVE, EDIT, MOVE, or CLOSE ANY TOPIC at any time should they see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered above being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent the webmaster, administrator and moderators cannot be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised."

I belong to one such forum and the place works quite well. People are friendly and discussion is excellent. We all play by the rules and when someone doesn't, it is dealt with immediately. A thread like this one wanting to discuss policy is immediately removed.

Try to think it through and see if you can't live with the minor nitpicks which you insist on championing.

Spaw

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 07:20 AM

Well put 'Spaw.

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 07:20 AM

Where do I sign?

Subject: RE: In the UK..............?
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 07:46 AM

THANK YEW, SPAW!!

Roger, if we are upfront, then we ARE known to fellow members. You are, as usual, making a lot of paranoid assumptions.

I wish Max WOULD use something like Spaw posted. It'd make the clone job a lot easier and less murky.