BS: Do you need to be censored?

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

To suggest Max has no more right than anyone else is as foolish a notion as I have heard postulated. He has all rights. Add the fact that he pays for all this with very little help. I know this man, and what started out as a cool thing to do, has turned into duty for him. He keeps this going because he knows that it is an outlet for folks from all persuasions, places, and music styles to express and be a part of a community. What was a cool thing has become a personal obligation. I remember when he had to share his bedroom with his lady and all the computers. I remember when he worried daily at how he was going to be able to keep it going after Onstage ended. Did he need the headache with a new baby, new wife, and trying to make a living? Nope. A less decent person would have folded the tent and left.

All rights here are Max's. The rest of us are feeding at his trough. Gratefullness is what you should have, Shambles, not criticism. I do not care what you think is right. And it isn't "our" forum. It belongs to the young man who has sacrificed to keep it going. He chooses to give his proxy to some of us. We try to do the best we can to maintain the site and keep it true to its roots. We make mistakes, but we try to fix them. For the most part we succeed. Proof of that is that you are still allowed to post, FOR in most forums they would simply have gotten rid of you and a couple of others here.

And Jack, enough of this POWER TO THE PEOPLE stuff. You just sound foolish. There is no freakin' revolution here. It is a site maintained by a person for the discussion of music, and the issues that spawn it. A little perspective is useful here.

Mick

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

Hi Shambles,

I don't have the facts on the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. How has this been done? I haven't seen any example of it. Please enlighten me.

Yes, you must dig out some examples again to support your claim. Calling someone a "buffoon" is not nice if that is what was done, it's disrespectful and deserves an apology.

Is this a kind of feud that is unnecessary?

I need to know what was said and in what context. If personal attacks were made by anyone, the crediblity of the attacker is diminished regardless of who it was.

But you need to bring it up as evidence to support your claim. It would be required of you in a court of law. I haven't seen it yet but I am open to the criticism that you have.

Personally, although I don't read every post, I am impressed by the exchange of ideas and information on Mudcat. I don't see anything wrong with hurling invective at an idea but I don't believe it's the best way to substantiate or present a case.

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. For example, I believe that Bush is acting like a criminal but I don't hate him. I am not calling him a "dirty bastard" or anything like that. I believe his behavior is corrupt butI don't view this as a personal attack on him since I'm not calling him names personally. I'm open to the idea that away from politics Bush might possibly be a nice person. Of ocurse, I don't know this. I think, though, he would have made a much better baseball manager than a president and Condi would have served everyone better if she played the piano instead of botching her job in the State Department. But these are not personal attacks.

I thoroughly disagreed with Reagan on almost every point of his political philosophy and believe that he was responsible for the rise of homelessness in America. He represented everything diametrically that I stand for. I knew Patti, his daughter, and trusted her when she told me that away from politics, he was a pretty nice person.

Thus said, I think that Bush's ideas about governing are "full of crap" but consistency impels me to attack ideas, not people.

Frank Hamilton

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

Good question Jeffp.

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

Max has the "right" to ban all folk music on the forum. But the Mudcat wouldn't be the Mudcat if he did. This talk of "rights" is silly and fruitless.

For God's sake if you don't like what Shambles is saying, ignore him. But criticizing him while playing the same silly game gets old.

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

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

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

love to discuss that with you frank - but dealing with a completly different issue at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:57 AM

Mario,

I think the issue needs to be separated from the invective. Anyone is entitled to their point of view as long as they don't attack another personally. We're talking ideas, here, not personalities.

Criticism is fine. Whether it's rational or not is up to those who read it.

Anyone can claim they are bullied or mistreated. This is not hurtful to others. As to social protocol, a lack of it is unfortunate but not necessarilly hurtful.

I am in faovr of any criticism, dissent or invective heaped on an idea but not on a person. If someone wants to say that my ideas are "full of crap", that's OK by me as long as I am not personally attacked. Ideas can be defended by reason. Personal attacks can't.

Frank Hamilton










--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:06 PM

Pornographic references to people as fecal matter or using descriptions that are abusive and directly insulting serves no one.
In this case, someone such as Joe has the right to intervene.

With the greatest of respect Frank.

Has is escaped your attention that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has often set the example of indulging in such posts as you describe toward easy targets and incited other to follow this example? Has deleted such posts from certain posters and completely ignored many from certain favoured ones?

I can dig some examples of them out again - if I really must. The most recent name he has publicly called me is a buffoon - but there are worse.

Would you consider that this would still entitle the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to intervene when others followed this example? And if he did could this be seen to have any credibility?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:55 AM

it is not clouding the issue. it is the very basic foundation of the issue. Because the entire discussion *does* eventually boil down to whether or not Max has the right to edit, delete, change, move, modify, etc.    And he does.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:50 AM

If people don't post here. Max has nothing but an idle server.

Stop buying the Bull Shit!! The PEOPLE have the power!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:49 AM

And will these legal "rights" get him a cup of coffee at Starbucks? Nope! He'll still need his $1.75. Legal "rights" only count in court. The fact is, Shambles has just as much "right" to do what he does as Max does to censor. The bottom line here is not what will stand up in court, its what you can "sell" to the membership. So talk of "rights" is nothing more than a weak sales job.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,G
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:42 AM

If we can be realistic for a moment, you have to know that Max is giving all of us his permission to post here. Without it, where would you be?

It is his ball and if he wants to 'take it and go home', that is also his perogative.

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could think otherwise. How much are you paying to post here????????

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:35 AM

Unfortunately Jack you are 100% incorrect in that assumption. Max owns the server and the site. Because of that he does indeed have the full and legal right to edit, delete, modify, combine, close, etc any post or thread on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: jeffp
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:34 AM

You can't be seriously claiming that Max has no more right to control this site than you, for example, do. That's just absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:15 AM

I donno about all of this talk about Max's "rights". The Mudcat forums would be nothing without the people who post, so he actually has no more "rights" than those who come here choose to give him. Making this place work means pleasing the membership. If you choose to try to bolster Max's artificial "rights" by arguing for them, that's your "right". But recognize that it is nothing but empty rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 10:21 AM

WHOA! you are going way to fast for me...

What I am trying to do, and to establish, is that we are both discussing this from the same basis. We are not agreed that max has the rights to edit etc.

Secondly, do you understand the concept of Proxy? (see my previous post)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 09:30 AM

MMario - The present 'system' was well-intentioned but it offers no protection to posters from inconsistent or personally motivated actions being imposed on certain targets. Just as importantly, it offers no protection for those imposing editing action, from any charges that imposed actions were inconsistent or personally motivated. Nor from their integrity from being compromised by the public actions of their fellow editors.

Even more importantly - it seems to encourage division and an attitude where posters now seem to be more concerned with ways of preventing others from posting their views – than encouraging all of us all to post and concentrate on our own. Which are the only posts any of us have any real control over.

One of the main problems is that some of those who would appear to be making, changing and enforcing the current 'rules' in order to shape our forum to their personal tastes – do not feel that they should be subject to the same 'rules' –or indeed to any 'rules'. I would like to propose the following changes to this 'system' which I think would help to solve many of these problems..

Could all proposed imposed censorship actions be referred to Max, limited to the offending post only, rather than the entire thread and every action subsequently agreed to, be clearly recorded in the thread in question?

Could the ability to close any thread for any reason, be limited to Max and any requests for closure be made directly to him only? And could all threads (except) these – remain open?

Could all other editing duties be limited to a few known posters who would always be acting as fellow posters unless it was clearly stated they were commenting in their editing duties?

Could editing duties be limited to:

only privately referring any proposed candidates for imposed censorship to Max.

only responding to any requested changes to a poster's own contributions and recording this in the thread.

only changing anything with the poster's knowledge and prior agreement and recording this in the thread

Could any poster undertaking these duties who is seen to exceed the above or sets any example like the posting of any abusive personal attacks or responding in kind to any they may receive, or be seen to post only personal judgements of the worth of their fellow posters – be relieved of their editing duties?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 03:42 PM

LOL.....Yeah, but ya' know I've been a member on a racing board that is affiliated with a network and they allow NO nasty words, not even a hell or a damn....software edits them but the mods edit out the "damm" and "he!!" and all the tries like feck or fock.

Also no one calls names or they get zapped.

No one questions the deletions or edits publicly or the thread gets zapped.

Arguing is pretty vehement but if you go for the person you're zapped....and that is left up to the judgement of a mod.

All the mods are regular members as well and use different screen names for mod duty.

There are 18 different forums and all the mods are conscripts and work only one forum each....and during specific hours

And I've been posting there for over three years and never zapped!

And for the past year I've been a mod.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 03:10 PM

whoops! I have to amend my statement above:

[As a matter of fact, unless he does so delegate the rights no one is capable of those actions]

should read:

[As a matter of fact, unless he does so delegate the rights no authorized legal poster is capable of those actions]

since there is always the possibility of hackers.

'Spaw - If I were Shambles I'd capitulate immediately just to see how long you could actually manage it! Though I notice you didn't include the scatological or insulting.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:53 PM

But Mario my friend, don't you undeerstand that Roger is fighting for ME!!! He says he only goes by that one throw-off line Max wrote many years ago saying not to sweat the rules 'cause there ain't none. He is my Knight and Saviour.

Now as soon as Shambo is willing to concede to the "FAQ" and agree that mods are here and they ARE Max's chosen appointments, then I will happily stop posting "profane" words.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:50 PM

I do not post only personal judgement of the worth of my fellow named posters ....

Or attempt to excuse the inexcusable double standards and hypocrisy displayed on our forum by some posters.

No, you do not judge your fellow named posters!?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:44 PM

Damn, 'Spaw!!! You distracted him. Just when he finally stated that Max's right to to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum.

Next step.

Roger, do you understand the concept of proxy? that Max can delegate his rights as mentioned above to others?


[As a matter of fact, unless he does so delegate the rights no one is capable of those actions]

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:32 PM

Fuckin' A right Roger......Shitfire Man, your wish is my command!

Was that what you had in mind?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:28 PM

Any chance of putting in one of your usual needless profanities, scatological references and name-calling?

Or has someone finally had a word with you about this?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:11 PM

"MMario on a practical level those of us who eat meat accept that animals have to be slaughtered to enable this. The question is the manner in which we slaughter them.".......Shambles


ROTFLMAO........I bet your butcher loves you Roger!!!

"Mr.Cleaver, was that bull bolted or did he die of natural causes? Any chance you have some ground round that was run over by a Peterbilt?"

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:09 PM

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.

I do accept that there are other rights and responsibilities.

For example;

Do you or I have the right to ask that our posts not be edited? Yes.

Do you or I have the right to REQUIRE that our posts not be edited? NO. (Because that would contravene Max's basic right to do so)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:09 PM

The 'rule' is common sense and courtesy, and you, Roger, are just as guilty of avoiding that rule as those you complain about...you just do it in a different direction and call it something else.

Piffle!

I make no claim for perfection - but I do not post only personal judgement of the worth of my fellow named posters - post abusive personal attacks - call posters abusive names - encourage and incite others to do so or respond in kind to the many abusive personal attacks that I am subject to and receive no protection from.

Or attempt to excuse the inexcusable double standards and hypocrisy displayed on our forum by some posters - using your unique brand of Mudlogic.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:56 PM

The topic you seem to want to discuss is directly and quintessentially effected by whether or not you understand the fact that Max and his proxies have the right to to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum.

MMario on a practical level those of us who eat meat accept that animals have to be slaughtered to enable this. The question is the manner in which we slaughter them.

That Max has the right to do the things you list is NOT in question.

Perhaps you would accept that there are other rights and responsibilities?

P.S. What insulting names have you called me that I have forgotten?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:37 PM

" Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none"
..but there are standards and decisions and "deciders"...(our esteemed (*grin*) president said the other day that HE is the 'decider'. Here, Joe, and above him, Max, are the deciders. That way we don't have to write out in monumental and tedious detail all possible 'rules'.

The 'rule' is common sense and courtesy, and you, Roger, are just as guilty of avoiding that rule as those you complain about...you just do it in a different direction and call it something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:36 PM

your recollection is faulty then Roger. And I signed my name and everything.   

Could you answer my question, please?

The topic you seem to want to discuss is directly and quintessentially effected by whether or not you understand the fact that Max and his proxies have the right to to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum.

Yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:31 PM

MMario -

You have gotten quite heated with me - you have not to my recollection ever felt you needed to call me names.

Perhaps you would be the one to set a better example as Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:55 PM

again, Roger, the response is irrelevant to the question asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:52 PM

Obviously there is a lot of interpretation and gray area in determining this, but I am going to make it black and white.

It's real simple. If I FEEL that you are not a positive factor in this community and/or said things to drive folks away or scare anybody, etc., your membership will be deactivated until you call me on the telephone to personally discuss the situation.

That public statement by Max would appear to me to apply to everyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:51 PM

MMario, I knew he would quote exactly that sentence as a response and you must have known that as well after all these years.

Sometimes I think the worst Joe ever has done to Shambles is to let him post all these posts and to keep threads like this open. There is no insult even worse than those he is so pleased to repeat that can do even remotely as much damage to Shambles reputation as his own posts do. It is a sad story oscillating between comedy and tragedy.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:45 PM

Roger - I asked a simple yes or no question. Your qoute has no relevance whatsoever to the question asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:44 PM

User Name Thread Name Subject Posted [PM] Max Max is taking action (76* d) Max is taking action 22 Jul 99

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the tone of the Mudcat lately. The Shambles leaving finally allowed me to come to some kind of conclusion about how to handle it from a Mudcat Administrator point of view. For one thing, I have marveled at the comradery and love and knowledge and friendship that the Mudcat has been. I have felt safe in meeting new people here and inviting them into my home. But something is changing.

To get to the point, I have decided to watch the threads with the help of some of the volunteers and communication with all Mudcat members to identify people who "cross the line". Obviously there is a lot of interpretation and gray area in determining this, but I am going to make it black and white. It's real simple. If I FEEL that you are not a positive factor in this community and/or said things to drive folks away or scare anybody, etc., your membership will be deactivated until you call me on the telephone to personally discuss the situation. I cannot let another fine person leave, and I cannot support a community where people are not comfortable sharing who they are and what the love, and I will not continue publishing the Mudcat if we cannot find a way to control it.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:40 PM

MMario

Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules
From: Max - PM
Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM

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: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:28 PM

Spaw,

You are a funny, funny man, with an amazing memory. You appear to recall that my first encounter with "Mudcat moderation" was when a certain mudelf, who has since mellowed quite a bit, called me a few others "a horse's patoot". It was on that day that I learned the real "rules of engagement" here, I seldom go as far as that moderator did, but when I do, I find comfort in the fact that name calling, when needed, is allowed.

Getting back to this example.... at the risk of offending John Hardly, I need some clarity here.

Main Entry: buf·foon
Pronunciation: (")b&-'fün
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French bouffon, from Old Italian buffone
1 : a ludicrous figure : CLOWN
2 : a gross and usually ill-educated or stupid person
- buf·foon·ish /-'fü-nish/ adjective

So Shambles is literally a clown? I'm sorry that must be my mistake, but I can't see his make up.

He's certainly isn't gross, ill-educated or stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:16 PM

Roger - my point from the beginning has been that Joe is not answerable to you, me,or any poster. He is answerable to Max. that's the way the system works, because Max owns the site and appointed Joe to do what Joe does.

Period. That is a fact. He does not have to explain or justify any of his actions to any poster. They are between him and Max.

You apparently do not like this.

I don't like the fact that if I jump off a 30 foot tower I will not float gently to the ground. But that isn't going to change the facts of what will happen if I do so jump.

While you may not have ever doubted the honest good intentions of any of the participants, from the beginning the language and terms you have used certainly make it appear that you do indeed doubt the intentions of those participants.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:16 PM

?? roger - Joe specifically states that the reason for closure wasn't the term asshole, or that they were calling each other that. How does that qoute promote your point of view?

I have a serious question for you.

Do you understand that even if it were not stated in the FAQ, Max and his appointed proxies (which includes anyone with an edit button) have the right to delete, edit, change, modify, close, any thread, posting, page, file etc on Max's servers and site?

I am not asking if you agree with this, or if you think it is right, or proper. Do you understand that Max et al as a plain simple statement of truth have the RIGHT to do so?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:03 PM

My apologies to those readers who find the use of a succint descriptive impolite; however I stand by my statement that, polite or not, it is not an insult to use a term that describes the actions of a person.

All this is beside the point of course as what is important is who is using the word. But perhaps you would care to supply your list of words to the chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - for their would appear to be a double standard?

Subject: RE: Why Is Martin Gibson Allowed Here?
From: GUEST,LDB - PM
Date: 15 Sep 04 - 05:25 PM

I think Martin Gibson serves one of the most important roles here on Mudcat. He is the only one who smashes Lepus the asshole Rex and his/hers/its stupid comments to bits. The only problem with that is that Martin Gibson is so much smarter than Lepus the asshole Rex that Lepus the asshole Rex doesn't even know that he has been smashed by Martin Gibson.

Keep up the great work, Martin Gibson. And remember, Lepus the asshole Rex is an asshole.

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: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 11:45 AM

My apologies to those readers who find the use of a succint descriptive impolite; however I stand by my statement that, polite or not, it is not an insult to use a term that describes the actions of a person.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 11:42 AM

your point? those are not deletions or censoring. they are joe's stated opinions regarding your actions, signed with his name - they are not anonymous attacks. In fact, they are not "attacks" at all when, when taken in context.

MMario I do not consider you to be a fool but your determination to defend, justfy and excuse online behaviour and the examples set more than once by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that you would accept if this same individual had imposed editing action on exactly the same online behaviour - is making you look foolish.

By repeatedly displaying it, the stubborn attempt to justify this behaviour and showing no inclination to apolgise to our forum for it nor any commintment to change it - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has also made it impossible for any of his team. For this stance will destroy any remaining credibility this 'system' may once had been able to claim.

Which is a shame as I have never doubted the honest good intentions of all the participants - just the inablity of this well-intended 'system' to deliver anything but more division on our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 11:26 AM

Geez.......I didn't know that Jack. Can't use "Buffoon" huh? Hmmmmm.........well, how about "Horse's Patoot" then?

Just a thought.........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 10:47 AM

Its never polite to call someone a buffoon. It may be, may be OK for you one to point to specific behaviors and express an opinion that these behaviors are wrong, but it is never right to label someone you disagree with as a buffoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 09:21 AM

JTS- perhaps I should have said "If one exhibits the characteristics equated with a buffoon then to name that person a buffoon is merely description, not insult." - on the other hand, to call someone a buffoon when they have NOT exhibited those traits would then be an insult.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 09:11 AM

The Shambles, 27 Apr 06 - 06:43 AM:

It could be simply to demonstrate that when you post only to judge a thread or a fellow poster in a thread - you only refresh it?

And that if you should not approve - if you simply ignore the offending post or thread - in time it will fall off the bottom of the world?

Well, no...unless he decides to stop being the first one to come onto the thread each day with some cogent comment, and to refresh it.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 09:03 AM

roger - naming someone to be what they have demonstrated themselves to be is not an insult - it is a statement of fact. the shoe fits, through your own choice and action, and thus you should wear it. If you do not wish to be called a buffoon, do not exhibit the behavior of one.

I really respect Mario, and I agree inprinciple, I could not disagree more strongty in the specifics. No one "demonstrates" themselves to be a buffoon or an asshole, those insults are matters of opinion and not demonstrable fact. Having those opinions come from a moderator undermines all calls for peace and civility and makes a mockery of the suggestion that Emily Post's "Etiquite" be used as the a guide to the standard of behavior here.

A hypothetical example, aimed at no one. If someone is engaging in a specific behavior such as name calling and looking for fights, you might say that he is beligerent, but it would be crossing a line of etiquite to call him a "goon".

If name calling is wrong. It is just as wrong for the cheif moderator as it is for the lowliest "GUEST".

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 08:38 AM

he he

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 08:36 AM

Martin - you are perfectly welcome to assume I am a wimpy idiot and to express your opinion; but people who know me will tell you I am *not* easily offended, and in fact am a very tolerant person.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 08:29 AM

I need the 399.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 08:24 AM

Perhaps to irritate, agitate and even make fools out of some?