BS: Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 May 06 - 05:54 AM

Thread Proliferation Control   

The following from the above thread. [Now closed]

Subject: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:51 AM

There were two Iraq threads started today that just didn't need to be started, since there already were a number of Iraq threads running. The new threads didn't deal with a major change - they were ancillary to the ongoing discussions. With a little thought, the thread originators could have fit their information into the ongoing discussion.
I think there's a general consensus that a very few people are starting a very large number of threads, and I think there is general annoyance with new threads started when there is already an ongoing discussion on a related topic. On music threads, we combine requests with previous threads as a matter of course. I've been wondering about the political and other BS threads, and I think maybe I'll go in the same direction.
When Iraq threads get started that don't really bring up a new topic, I think I'll move them into a Misc Iraq thread, or to an existing Iraq discussion. I suppose some of the thread originators won't like it, but maybe it will help them learn to fit their comments into existing threads, instead of fragmenting the discussion so much.
We have some fascinating people at Mudcat, people who have well-honed opinions on just about any subject you can think of. If they're interested in a subject, they will give a well-reasoned response that really gives you something to think about.
The way things have been, a small number of people have flooded the 'Cat with a huge amount of repetitive information, and the well-reasoned messages get drowned in the flood.
I really hate to delete messages unless they're clearly harmful, but I think maybe that a system of moving them may serve to focus the discussion. I think you'll note that the PEL people have settled down a bit. Maybe the Iraq folks will do the same.
-Joe Offer-

(copied over from the Help Forum [click])

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 May 06 - 05:41 AM

Is closing threads censorship?

---

Censorship and Attitude rolled into TWO

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 May 06 - 05:14 AM

Don't try to change other people's opinions. Make your points and others will make theirs.

I am not sure I expect to change other peoples's opinions - I am prepared to change mine if I am presented with a reasoned view but not when presented with abuse, bullying, personal judgements and all other 'fun' tactics that are current to try and prevent open discussion. As mostly the point is to discuss and try and encourage discussion on things that a few others would rather prefer were not openly discussed on our forum at all.

I feel the only sensible way to change anyone's opinion (if that is the object) is to simply try and present the evidence that any reasoned opinion should be based on. For many opinions appear to be held and strongly expressed, despite the rather clear evidence that is provided. But that is their choice to accept the evidence or not. It is perhaps not their choice to try and prevent others from seeing the evidence and making their own choices?

The nature of our forum is such that many posters do not even read the previous posts in a thread - let alone read previous threads on similar subjects. So in order to present the evidence to as many posters as possible - it is ofen necessary to re-refer to things that regular contributors may find boring. But no one is being forced to open or read anything in any thread. This is a choice that few seem to even recognise is open to them - let alone for them to actually make that choice.

Perhaps it is this choice that should be encouraged - rather than encouraging posters to think they have some right to judge the worth of their fellow invited guests and to prevent others from posting what they choose?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bert
Date: 02 May 06 - 10:36 PM

Well, I posted a few times on that thread and didn't get a chance to respond to a guest who asked me a lot of questions.

So Guest why not log in as a member and send me a PM, and I'll answer your concerns.

Roger, I think that our voice has been heard and that 'the powers that be' now know that there WAS some indiscriminate editing actually happening. I consider that to be a considerable step forward in getting more respectful control from the moderators.

Whoever it was that was doing it was either annoyed, drunk or simply thought that they were doing the right thing. Whatever it was, I think that now Joe is on top of the situation, it should stop.

Personally, I see no need for further discussion on the subject unless it happens again.

Goodnight all. Sleep tight.

Bert.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 06 - 06:44 PM

BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one

That thread should be cross-linked to this one, just to present more of the picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: autolycus
Date: 02 May 06 - 06:16 PM

Roger, I appreciate yor response.

At my recent annual medical (I'm 60), my blood pressure was fine. When I get irritated, that's a long way from b.p. worries. It's not incandescent rage.

you're right that not posting at all is not a solution -that's an extreme response (bit like the leap to blood pressure). Mind you, I stopped posting on the astrology thread for a stated period ('bout 3 weeks)virtually completely without harm.

   Only posting what's acceptable - also bit extreme.

   Only there are other strategies.

   You've made some of your points over and over. (i really don't think the argument of the others is quite ON your points). I think you're making some of views interminably is counterproductive for you. In your shoes, I'd have said to myself,"There's none so deaf as those that will not hear. In the light of that thought,what am I doing by baging on. By doing so,I'M doing something, I'M contributing to this situation."

Einstein made a point a long time ago that the scientist is part of the experiment. Some scientists, and by extension, many people, haven't really taken that on board, and continue with the attitude that they are independant of the situation they are describing.

I've seen in groups how very, very resistant people are to the very idea that they are a part of a situation that they are describing, usually in terms of what OTHER PEOPLE are doing.

ANOTHER STRATEGY.

Don't try to change other people's opinions. Make your points and others will make theirs. Note which of your ideas people are ignoring and think ,"They're not ready to hear this ". Note which and how many of questions get answered and consider what might be going on that they aren't answering.

These are just thoughts, not commands. Obviously. What you do is your choice. Obviously.

I just mean there are even more possible responses to what's going on than you have hitherto come up with.

hence,"If you keep on doing what you've always done, you'l keep on getting what you've always got."

Best wishes (BTW, this is called critical support in the trade.)

   
   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 06 - 04:32 PM

What is really good is "the Mudcat Editing Team" Long may they reign and also increase their activity.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 May 06 - 04:12 PM

The above thread - after intentional attempts to turn the subject matter to the writing of a book.

That's a good link legend.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 May 06 - 03:45 PM

Censorship and Attitude rolled into one

The above thread - after intentional attempts to turn the subject matter to the writing of a book. And after posts attempting to discuss the weather had been deleted, denied and then undeleted by those who feel themselve qualified to protect us - has been closed.

I suspect with much relief by the members of our editing team - under the excuse that the thread's originator asked for its closure.

I suggest that if the originator was not happy that the subject of this clearly titled thread was to be censorship and attitude - they should have chosen another title? Or now be asked to start a new thread with whatever title they may prefer.

Surely the object an originator starting a thread is to enable a discussion - not for them to subsequently be able to prevent other posters from continuing the one currently taking place on that thread's subject?   

Perhaps the thread can be re-opened to enable the discussion on that thread's subject - (clearly set out in the title on) censorship and attitude - to continue?

Or do I really have to dig-up all the posts where I am told by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that a thread's originator does not have any subsequent rights over a thread that they start? Or will we now be told that this depends on which poster is asking and what the thread contains and who would prefer that it is closed?

Do I now have the right to ask and expect all the posts intentionally attempting 'hi-jack the threads I originated, to be deleted from them or will I receive an offer to close these also?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 May 06 - 04:23 PM

And I get irritated when points that I've made get ignored.

If so Ivor and for the sake of your blood pressure - I would question if you really are posting in the right place?

I take your point to be - that I am part of the problem?

Possibly, but that rather depends on what you think what the problem is that I am part of.

On one level - (in the face of some posters who appear to think they have some right to try all sorts of tactics to prevent this) - being able to continue posting my views and for others to be able to do this on our forum, is an end in itself.

It is difficult to see how I could solve this problem by NOT posting to our forum at all or posting only (more acceptable) views that would not be subject to the tactics I refer to.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 05:17 PM

You are right in many of the questions you ask, Roger, and I get annoyed when others blithely ignore your points and don't answer your questions.

And I get irritated when points that I've made get ignored. (I'll keep this up for a little while - otherwise please doNOT respond to this bit in parentheses).

Best wishes


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 05:00 PM

In asking, you're doing what you've always done. Just so it's not overlooked, in asking, you're doing what you've always done.

All I am doing is posting and trying to have a discussion on a discussion forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 04:54 PM

Yes, the longer one holds to a given position the more one has invested in continuing to hold it.

It can be like the Americans in Vietnam...or Iraq. When do you abandon the position, and what will it cost in self-esteem and losing face when you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 04:38 PM

In asking, you're doing what you've always done. Just so it's not overlooked, in asking, you're doing what you've always done.

The stance you're taking is very familiar to me, from the inside. It amounts to saying, "If only another/others would only ............(whatever).......then it would be ok." It amounts to not recognising/be prepared to see one's own part in the situation one objects to; in other words, seeing one's own responsibility in a given situation (NOT the same as "seeing that one is responsible for a situation"; STILL LESS THAT one is to blame).

And I know from my own struggles with this sort of scenario how one will fight against the suggestion."No,no,no,no, it's them, not me,it's them, them,them".

And one can hang onto this line thru everything. consequently, one sticks clam-like to "I'm right obviously".

Someone rightly pointed out somewhere on Mudcat that most of us think we're right, cos our lives would feel terrible, or we have catastrophic scenarios in our heads about the consequences,if we saw that we're mistaken, especially if we've held to a strong view for a long time and in public.



   Writing this has been helpful for me because I see how it is possible to confuse two separate matters so easily.

   One is about seeing the part one is playing in a situation one dislikes.
   
   The other (different and connected)is about right and wrong.

   As I've done in this post, I can swerve from one to the other as tho' they were the same.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 03:31 PM

Dress in huge baggy pants and you'll ride the road to romance.
A butcher or a baker, ladies never embrace.
A barber for a beau would be a social disgrace.
They'll come to call if you can fall on your face.
Be a clown, be a clown, be a clown.
Be a clown, be a clown, all the world loves a clown.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 03:05 PM

Why would need to carry on banging my head - if the wall is no longer there?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 02:57 PM

Roger, you may well be right.

   I'm none too clear if you realise that the "if you keep on doing....." line applies quite as much to you and me as anyone else.

   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 11:03 AM

And of course "If you keep on , you'll keep on getting what you've always got." If you like that sort of thing.

Whether you like it or not - you would always seem to get it dished out - would now appear to be the status quo.

But when major changes are publicly proposed to the status quo - by those who would impose constant restrictions to others on our forum, but are never satisfied - it offers an opporunity to examine if 'doing what you've always done' is really the best way to do it.

Perhaps a choice between 'doing what you've always done' and obtaining the 'required peace' - is one that now needs to be made?

When it is now accepted that 'doing what you've always done' will only result in 'getting what you've always got'? And not any form of peace at all.

For of course this current system of certain posters (some anonymous)imposing their judgement upon others - is NOT the way it was always done and its introduction has just created more open divison and conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 10:05 AM

IME* as a therapist (oh God, not that again), there are people who, consciously or unconsciously, draw to themselves difficulies, problems, anger etc. This is not a therapy forum, obviously, so less can be effectively done.

   Roger is quite correct that if we don't like a thread, ceasing to post to it will have the effect that the thread will disapear. Logical.

   And of course "If you keep on doing what you've always done, you'll keep on getting what you've always got." If you like that sort of thing.

*IME (In my experience)


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 06:45 AM

This is an example of what I mean when I go on about the current 'system' 'shaping our forum' to the personal tastes of a few.

Subject: RE: Song Challenge: Camilla and Charlie were lovers
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 02:51 AM

Can whoever placed the prefix 'Song Challenge' before the title that I chose for this thread please remove this prefix?

This thread is not a 'Song Challenge' and as far as I am aware the choice of using a prefix (or not) still remains an option for the poster. If anyone else wishes to change this - perhaps rather than simply impose this change - the origination could be asked for their opinion first?

Thank you.

Well, hello, Shambles- I added the explanatory tag to the thread title. If I had my druthers, all the song challenge threads would be on the bottom half of the Forum Menu - but they haven't been, so they'll stay up top. If I remove the "Song Challenge" tag, the thread will go to the bottom half of the Forum because the title makes it look like it's a BS thread. That's your choice - keep the tag, or have it removed and have the thread on the bottom half of the Forum Menu.
The Forum Menu is an index of the threads, and should give an idea of the contents of the threads.
If you want to turn this thread into yet another complaint about the way the Mudcat volunteers do their work, then it will end up in the "BS" section.
You can let me know your choice by personal message. I don't see that adding a thread title tag is anything to get upset about.

-Joe Offer-

The stark choice given was that this music related thread could only stay where it was originally posted if its title was changed (without the originators prior knowledge or permission). Or if the imposed change was removed - the music related thread would be relegated to the BS section.

And the manner of this imposed 'tinkering' is judged as nothing 'to get upset about'. I suggest that it was nothing to warrant any imposed editing action at all in the first place and could be seen to be personally motivated.

But the judgement and opinion expressed (along with the usual public threat) goes even futher. To the effect that all our forum's Song Challenges should be relegated along with the usual threat.

Now how is any poster supposed to see this form of editing action or the attitude and judgements behind it - as objective or in any way protecting us from personal attacks?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 05:27 AM

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 05:18 PM

He's not a pedantic arse. He's just a clown pretending to be one.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 05:02 PM

Will you stop being a pedantic ass and actually discuss what you claim to have wanted to discuss for several years now? Or admit that you prefer to just cause a stink and piss people off? Because it has become obvious that either you ARE a pedantic ass - 9let me translate that east of the Atlantic for you - you are an arse0; or else you are a very twisted individual.

MMario - Are you quite sure you are not following the example set by the the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team?

OK, so I suppose it's time to close this one, too. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know it doesn't have anything to do with everybody calling each other asshole.
That kind of stuff makes it really difficult to carry on an adult discussion.
-Joe Offer-

It is a Good job the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team he has already said he is not going to close this one.

MMario you are free to discuss whatever you wish in this thread - if you would stop posting only abusive personal judgements of your fellow poster - and say what it is - I will discuss it with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 12:54 PM

You can't make any criticism of the current 'system' without the individual fellow posters concern becoming sensitive and taking this personally. So what you get is a whole lot of criticism in return from these individuals some of them attacking you in return for the assumed personal attack they think you are making on them. even when you do not know who they are.....

My critism of those anonymous editors is not of them personally but of the devisive 'system' that results in this - them and us situation. Although I do not understand why some appear to be happy to nothing to prevent their fellow editors from excusing, justifying and defending examples of conduct that bring their own integrity into question.

But I still don't ' really see anything that could be thought 'nice' about anyone wanting to be in a position or to feel themselves qualified to imposed the judgement on their fellow posters. And to also wish to do it anonymously is something I really don't understand. Perhaps the problem is that the role has moved from simply being one of helping other posters when they requested this - to something else?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 11:05 AM

MMario,

He's a clown. That's all. He's playing with you. That's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 10:53 AM

Roger - Joe Offer doe not make up my mind for me, nor does he set the standard for my behavior.

Are you sure - he does not apolgise either.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 10:51 AM

Subject: RE: BS: why all the closed threads?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:49 PM

Yes, there have been a number of threads closed or deleted lately. Things have been unusually nasty around here this last week. Somebody suggested it might be the full moon that made Mudcatters crazier than usual.

Mick did a pretty good summary of the way we do things. They aren't rules, but they are the general procedures we follow. The general principle is that moderators will use a variety of moderation techniques to keep the peace, but that moderation techniques are to be used sparingly. When things are in an uproar, we moderate more strictly. When things are calm, we moderate hardly at all.

Personal attacks, racism, and Spam are deleted when we find them, and we consider blank messages to be Spam.>snip<

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 10:50 AM

Roger - Joe Offer doe not make up my mind for me, nor does he set the standard for my behavior.

Will you stop being a pedantic ass and actually discuss what you claim to have wanted to discuss for several years now? Or admit that you prefer to just cause a stink and piss people off? Because it has become obvious that either you ARE a pedantic ass - 9let me translate that east of the Atlantic for you - you are an arse0; or else you are a very twisted individual.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 06:25 AM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 06:08 AM

I'm sure you can recall them Roger, should you think about it.
In the spirit of this conversation I prefer not to repeat gratuitious insults.

MMario - Of course if you had not followed the example set by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team that such things are acceptable on our forum - you would not have to worry about repeating them.

I like to try show my fellow posters the same respect that they show to me, and perhaps - as I have not resorted to calling you names and rather than you have to repeat the insults you now admit that you have publicly called me - perhaps you could simply apologise to me and our forum for this past lapse, not do it again and we can all move on?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 05:56 AM

A link to a song in the Mudcat Song Book.

Were all right Jack

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: jeffp
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 05:10 PM

My apologies too, Jack. Nice catch on the song. Very appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 04:44 PM

Be a Clown - Cole Porter

Act the fool, play the calf, and you'll always have the last laugh.
Wear the cap and the bells and you'll rate all the great swells.
If you become a doctor, folks'll face you with dread.
If you become a dentist, they'll be glad when you're dead.
You get a bigger hand if you can stand on your head.
Be a clown, be a clown, be a clown.
Be a clown, be a clown, all the world loves a clown.
Be a crazy buffoon and the 'demoiselles 'll all swoon.
Dress in huge baggy pants and you'll ride the road to romance.
A butcher or a baker, ladies never embrace.
A barber for a beau would be a social disgrace.
They'll come to call if you can fall on your face.
Be a clown, be a clown, be a clown.
Be a clown, be a clown, all the world loves a clown.
Be the poor silly ass and you'll always travel first class.
Give 'em quips, give 'em fun and they'll pay to say you're A-one.
If you become a farmer, you've the weather to buck.
If become a gambler you'll be struck with your luck.
But jack you'll never lack if you can quack like a duck.
Be a clown, be a clown, be a clown.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 03:55 PM

Nobody's out to offend your right to free speech - but if you insist on making an asshole of yourself, you're likely to be treated like an asshole.
-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------
OK, so I suppose it's time to close this one, too. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know it doesn't have anything to do with everybody calling each other asshole.
That kind of stuff makes it really difficult to carry on an adult discussion.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 02:20 PM

Thanks for the kindness Mick but no need to apologize. I was just peeing on Shambles' cornflakes like everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 02:19 PM

I made the same mistake. sorry JtS!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 02:14 PM

In my post of 12:22, it seems that I misunderstood the context in which Jack the Sailor's comments were made. I didn't realize that they were made "tongue in cheek". I hope that Jack will accept my apology for the misunderstanding.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 02:08 PM

See Suggestion for Rules of Engagement For the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's response (in editing comment brown) to my suggestion for changes to the current censorship rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:56 PM

Mick I posted your opening and closing line on that one, mainly as a bit of light relief.

In my judgement - it remains THE funniest start and finish to a forum post ever......

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:46 PM

I love the fact that you use the "IRA Decommissioning" quote. It demonstrates quite clearly that you will just cut and paste things out of context. Shows there is no intellectual base to your arguments.

To suggest that I think a group who thinks a certain way is idiotic is not a wrong or bad thing to do. For example: I think that folks that want to drill in ANWR are shortsighted, and because their actions will destroy something beautiful, they are idiotic. I think that folks that seek to justify the actions and follow the teachings of despotic killers, such as Hitler, are dangerous and idiotic.

Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting anything about folks here personally, just making the point.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:44 PM

"OK, Jack. Why don't you and Shambles organize a boycott of the Mudcat in an effort to stop the moderators? "

No Jeffp

I wasn't telling you what to do. I was just making fun of the BS I have quoted above.

pretty good huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:34 PM

Those who personally attack anyone deserve no credibility however,
if someone is behaving badly or criminally, it's imperative to call criticism on this behavior.
Frank Hamilton

And if you are brave or foolish enough to do it on our forum - then duck and run for cover................

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: jeffp
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:29 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor - PM
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:22 PM

Why don't you just go and enjoy the forum rather than come to threads like this and mentally masturbate about imaginary rights?

I guess I was mistaken when I interpreted this as you telling me what to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:29 PM

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 03:28 PM

I also find it an interesting challeng to respond to insults without resorting to insults. Although I guess I have to admit that I have sometimes given in to that temptation, I think I generally do a pretty good job of expressing myself rationally and with good humor..

......................................................................

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 12 Aug 05 - 03:30 PM

You see, Roger, most of us are here to have a good time among friends. All of your adversarial crap is just that - adversarial crap. We volunteers do what we need to do to keep the peace and tidy things up. Nobody's out to offend your right to free speech - but if you insist on making an asshole of yourself, you're likely to be treated like an asshole. Basically, Mudcat is here for enjoyment - not for all this heavy stuff you try to lay on us. You want to play war games, and that's not what we're here for.

No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems.

If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something?
-Joe Offer-

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
Joe Offer
-----
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
Joe Offer.
------
Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying.
Joe Offer
------
Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-

The last one was not addressed to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:12 PM

Subject: RE: BS: I.R.A. Decissioning
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 03:33 PM

I am so tired of these apologist bastards. >snip<

Those that equivocate on the issue are idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:08 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM

Hmmmm.
Name-calling?
As far as I can recall, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is generally quite careful not to directly refer to anybody by a name.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM
>snip<
Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

Frank - let me know if you need more evidence - sadly there are more and worse names.
And more excuses and justification given for such examples. I would say outbursts - but you always have time to choose your words carefully online - so that excuse is not a valid one.

I fear it is as I say - SOME of those who would feel qualified to impose endless petty restrictions and judge the rest of us - do not appear think that any judgement or rules should apply to them and get very angry if such things are even suggested.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:00 PM

Michael Jackson

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:56 PM

Jeffp,

I'm not telling anyone what to do. I am laughing at people for playing Shambles game. Actually its pretty clear that Shambles is attempting to be a buffoon, in the clown sense of the word. If that's what Joe meant, he was actually justified in doing so. I would thing that Shambles would take being called a clown as a compliment. After all the whole shtick is pretty funny.

For Goodness sakes guys, Arguing with Shambles about "rights" is like telling Jay Leno that Michael isn't funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM

Hmmmm.
Name-calling?
As far as I can recall, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is generally quite careful not to directly refer to anybody by a name. He might refer to somebody who engages in such-and-such conduct as an "idiot"; but he rarely, if ever, would say that "so and so is an idiot." The "Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team" uses such oblique references in much the same way that another might use an oblique reference such as "Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team."

The "Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team" does admit that on one occasion, he referred to the multi-named poster of copy-paste posts as a "pain in the ass." The person had posted pages and pages of copy-paste information that was available in many other places - and posted only copy-paste information with nothing at all that he/she had written - and used a different sender's name in every post.

As for the "buffoon," it was a conclusion drawn within the context of a description of behavior of a person who prefers to discuss matters with out-of-context quotes instead of directly with the source of those quotes. He can't argue with a full, logical presentation of an idea, so he resorts to arguing with out-of-context excerpts and splitting discussions into dozens of threads. Sounds like buffoonery to me.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: jeffp
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:27 PM

I'm enjoying this very much! Why don't you stop trying to tell people what to do and utilize your right to stay away?