 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Do you need to be censored?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: jeffp Date: 27 Apr 06 - 08:03 AM Why are you ignoring my questions? Why won't you specify in simple language exactly what it is that you are after? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 06 - 06:23 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? That the only censor you ever need are the buttons in front of you? It could be that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: GUEST,Anomalous Member Date: 26 Apr 06 - 10:09 PM Hmmm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: jeffp Date: 26 Apr 06 - 05:00 PM You are the only one who can tell us. Why won't you specify in simple language exactly what it is that you are after? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: GUEST,Martin gibson Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:59 PM mmario, what if I told you all of your ranting about how easily offended you are makes you look like a wimpy idiot. You demonstrate the behavior of one by being so....................touchy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:57 PM Many poster have done nothing but tell me and our forum what my motives are. I will leave it to them - they are the experts.... If anyone actually read my posts - they may find out - if they are really interested? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: jeffp Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:53 PM You tell us. And tell us what your goal is also. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:51 PM Which is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:45 PM Good god no, the last thing Roger wants is a resolution to this little local difficulty, it would destroy his raisom d'etre. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: GUEST,heric Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:26 PM For several days Mr. Shambles has been keeping his own four threads consistently in the top ten BS spots. This gives me pause and cause to consider whether his intent differs from his positions as espoused. (It reminds me, vaguely, of Reagan or Bush II running up national debt with the alleged ulterior motive of crippling government services. It also somehow reminds me of the Iranian government's new promise to proliferate nuclear technology.) It mostly reminds me of a vexatious, self-represented litigant, the common profile for which is a very eloquent and persuasive person. With a vexatious, pro-se litigant, it is very easy to get absorbed in and pre-occupied with the substantive arguments presented. It is also entirely useless to inquire as to the litigants' goal, because no end is intended or desired. Forgive me, Roger, if I have mischaracterized your intent. It seems, however, that you have no endgame strategy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: MMario Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:03 PM 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. And one of those qoutes was made in response to the posting of an anonymous guest; if I do recall; so it wasn't made to *YOU* at all - EVEN IF YOU ACTUALLY MADE THE POST. and again, for those who saw the quote in context, not an "attack", but the end result of a process and dialogue. nor is Joe's refusal to do YOUR work and to supply time and dates for your out of context unreasonable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:00 PM roger - naming someone to be what they have demonstrated themselves to be is not an insult - it is a statement of fact. I suspect if I called you what you have demonstrated yourself to be - you may consider it an insult. I am sure certain other posters would and call for me to be banned or burnt at the stake. But as you know - posted insults are not really my concern. However, they are supposed to be the concern of those who are supposed to be protecting us from them. So the harm is done when any of our moderators set the example of posting abuse at fellow posters - not whether the abuse may be accurate or judged by you to be deserved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:52 PM 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- Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM Shambles quotes Joe saying: I wonder why Shambles is so afraid to give dates and context when he uses my words. That doesn't seem quite fair, either. Shambles sez: You could always ask him? But...... Shambles quotes Shambles saying: If the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wishes to deny making these quotes - I can certainly supply the threads and dates. Well, Roger, I don't want to be drawn into the discussion, and I try to avoid "pissing contests" as much as I can. You'll note that most of the time I don't comment unless there's something new to discuss. Lacking that, you attempt to insert me into the discussion, against my wishes, by posting out-of-context comments from me that are sometimes several years old. No, I shouldn't be obligated to look them up and give reference information for them - they're from your stalking library, and I would assume that you should have that information if you post the quotes. If you believe in fairness at all, the least you could do is furnish dates and context for the quotes you post. I have made no attempt whatsoever to deny the quotes you post - I have simply requested that you furnish dates and context information. Maybe you have noted that we are very careful to leave anti-Mudcat posts alone. We let people say just about anything they like about Mudcat and its administrators, because we truly do believe in free expression. But YOU abuse that privilege by posting half-truths and innuendo, and by posting the same thing over and over again. I like to answer legitimate questions about Mudcat policy and editorial actions, but you have made a mockery of that by raising the same issues over and over again. Your constant barrage of anti-Mudcat posts has effectively squelched legitimate discussion of Mudcat policy - because YOU twist every such discussion toward yourself. You fight in the name of freedom - but by conducting your fight without any respect for others, you effectively destroy the freedom of discussion of Mudcat policy. 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- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: autolycus Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:46 PM I don't need to be censored. I am not being asked about others. Would others care to duplicate the above line. It'd be great to have a complete set. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:21 PM "......naming someone to be what they have demonstrated themselves to be is not an insult......" Good point Mario. We always need to remember too that it is better to be pissed off than pissed on and better to be pissed on than pissed through.........'cause that'd make you a prick. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: MMario Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:12 PM I object to the use of the worfd "often"; I also believe that any "incitement" is purely in Roger's mind. I also object to the term "favoured" in the context used. 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. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles 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: 26 Apr 06 - 01:47 PM Stringsinger: You say (in response to Shamble's question "Do you need to be censored?") Shambles,I do not. Nor do you I beg to differ with you. Over the years I have seen numerous posts of Shambles, that were it my choice would have been deleted. I've told him this before - just because he avoids certain anglo-saxon phrases does not make his posts any less hurtful, derogatory or judgemental. He is guilty of every single "crime" and offense that he has accussed others of on this forum - with the possible exception of scatological vernacular - and I am willing to bet there is some of that in amongst his posts. He also is known (and provably so) to misquote, qoute out of context, and to edit qoutes to further his own point of view. He has claimed repeatedly to have no desire to influence the way this site is run by Max - yet constantly posts "suggestions" which criticize the current administration and the way the site is run. All this in addition to the way he posts suppossitions that are false, yet defends them as if they were true - and when this is pointed out to him claims that he is being bullied. Perhaps you are correct that he does not need to be censored. however - he is demopnstrably in dire need of polite social skills. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: GUEST Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:38 PM Yes as many believe it is you who is doing the real harm to the forum. Or could it be as in my case yesterday two posts supporting shambles viewpoints were deleted, along with another by someone else also supporting him on the same thread? Were these posts abusive/inflamatory/personal attacks? No, they pointed out that someone who calls for a member(shambles) to be banned and has previously deleted one of his posts, which joe later undeleted, isn't possibly the best person to be telling us how to post and what to post. Kat showed bias and lack of objectivity and let her over eager fingers moderate without engaging her own rules of conduct that she is at such pains to tell us is the way forward. So, if you don't see many posts supporting shambles it isn't because of lack of it, it is because they are being deleted and also some of us have busy lives and can't spend all day stalking him. Unlike his McDetractor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:15 PM In keeping with the current trend in going to Wikipedia....... Asshole or arsehole (outside of North America) is a slang term referring to the anus. The word is mainly used as a profanity towards someone the speaker does not like or to express deep contempt for someone whose behavior is hurtful, self-centered or particularly abrasive. Usually, the person to whom this term is directed is a male. It may also sometimes be used to describe people who are viewed as "stupid" or "useless." Now on the one hand I often use the term with people I do like in a joking manner, however if we look at "hurtful, self-centered or particularly abrasive"...................uh, Roger............Hurtful? Yes as many believe it is you who is doing the real harm to the forum. Self-Centered? Abrasive? ROTFLMAO.....Neither of these need any explanation in relationship to your actions. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:01 PM Us Roger, we who post on this, Max's site! G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Stringsinger Date: 26 Apr 06 - 12:53 PM Shambles, I do not. Nor do you. That's what I like about Mudcat. If however either one of us becomes abusive, mean or grossly insulting, we are wasting everyone's time and in that case Joe has the right and duty to call it. It's the issue of yelling "fire" in the movie theater. There is a point when the "freedom of speech" doesn't apply. Someone has to make this determination and I think Joe does a good job here. I think legitimate criticisms are in order and disagreements should be accepted wholeheartedly. Calling people dirty names doesn't qualify as legitimate as a rule. And it doesn't contribute a damned thing. 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. I believe though that punches should not be pulled when it comes to criticism and if done in a creative, descriptive manner that doesn't rely on personal attacks to anyone that posts here, that's legitimate. I don't want to be called an "ass-hole" or any other fecal name and I don't believe it serves anyone of us if this is done to us. Regarding certain people who I will not name, those that use this type of discourse, I will continue to discount anything they have to say. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: GUEST Date: 26 Apr 06 - 11:15 AM "Giok", I am thinkink your hip surgery could be a welcome relief from this thread. Hope everything goes well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 11:01 AM Us? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 11:01 AM It seems that will never be put to the test. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 26 Apr 06 - 10:58 AM Ah but, I can bet my bottom dollar as they say, that if it is left unrefreshed by us, it will be revived by you Roger, or at least referred to in a hyperlink in another thread, whether or not it is relevant! G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 26 Apr 06 - 10:44 AM You know waht? If it was not that same poster who refreshes this thread after every post of mine - this thread may just fall off the bottom. Do you need to be censored? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Apr 06 - 06:21 PM Why do you not only have to rehash the same argument for 7 years, but you also have to post it in two separate threads at the same time Roger, talk about obsessed! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 05:33 PM Question re moderators In the above thread I was informed in a post from kat that Roger, out of your 10,653 posts I have only deleted ONE, ever. As I have never posted anything that needed to be censored and was not aware of this action – I asked for details of this indiscretion so I did not repeat it. But I did not receive this information Later an editing comment was inserted into my post – as follows. And Kat reported the deletion to me, and I reviewed it and undeleted the message because I disagreed, and there was no big deal about it - so I think that means our system works. If you disagree with the undeletion, Shambles, let me know. -Joe Offer- It is difficult for me to know if I disagree or not – as I still have no idea what the nature of the offending post might have been. As for this being evidence that the system works - I think this is Mudlogic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 12:09 PM Don't worry Seamus - I am sure there will always be someone willing to step into the gap..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 25 Apr 06 - 11:58 AM Roger, The 'Scotch stalker" is out of action. Your Irish respondent ( my good self) is going AWOL. You'll have to get by with Yanks, Brits, Aussies and Canucks. Oh crap! I just broke my promise to stay off this thread for 3 or 4 weeks. Bugger! Seamus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Ebbie Date: 25 Apr 06 - 11:34 AM The best of good fortune to you, Giok. Stay in touch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Apr 06 - 11:19 AM Yawn! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 11:18 AM Censorship always defeats it own purpose, for it creates in the end the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. Henry Steele Commager Do you need to be censored? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: jeffp Date: 25 Apr 06 - 08:35 AM Good luck to you Giok. Hope everything goes even better than planned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Apr 06 - 08:28 AM That may be because almost every thread appears to have an html hyperlink in it put there by you, and referring the reader back to Roger's World. Unfortunately I will not be able to hold you to account either for a week or thereabouts, as I am going into hospital on Thursday for a hip op. So you are going to lose your "little Scotch stalker" too, I'm sure you will miss me as much as I would miss you Roger. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 07:32 AM Who are the Mudcat icons? Editing comment from the above thread. Right, Ted, which is why the posts were deleted. The posts were attempts to hijack the thread, or well meaning folks who responded to the attempts. Play nice. Mudelf "Play nice" – commands the anonymous voice of Big Brother………. There appear to be threads that our anonymous guardians are quite prepared watch being intentionally 'hi-jacked' (or even join in with the hi-jacking) - and some they are not.... I am not too sure that anyone could tell us which thread is which? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 25 Apr 06 - 02:00 AM I'm probably not going to contribute to this thread for the next 3 or 4 weeks. So there! Sorry to hear that but my little Scotch stalker(s) will no doubt compensate...... On your return to the show will you been seen coming out of shower as if nothing had happened? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 25 Apr 06 - 12:54 AM Frank, on the bright side, I didn't call you a prick-stealing analogy. But fair is fair, I was in first with the soap-opera thingie. And Roger, the jelly-fish analogy was better than the soap-opera one? I'm shattered! You know how to hurt a guy. I'm probably not going to contribute to this thread for the next 3 or 4 weeks. So there! Seamus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 06 - 03:19 PM For what it is worth - I thought the jelly fish analogy was better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Pseudolus Date: 24 Apr 06 - 03:09 PM Geez, ya go away for a few days and someone calls ya an analogy stealing prick! sheesh! I must say at first I was tempted to be pissed off. But then I realized, it was Seamus! Now, really, for those of you that know him, have any of you ever TRIED to be mad at Seamus? I can't... Cause I know he was kidding....except maybe for that analogy stealing prick part. Frank P.S. I steal his jokes too, but don't tell him....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 24 Apr 06 - 12:12 PM Perhaps the 'no rules' thing worked fine when Mudcat was a small site, but then like Topsy it growed, and it became necessary to try for some semblence of order, it's called evolution Roger, you should try it on your arguments. Never mind, if many more members old, new, or would be, are driven away by your constant bickering perhaps the old rules will fit the newly reduced Mudcat? Or maybe this pond is just too big for a small fish like you? Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 06 - 11:57 AM Any policy at all might be preferable. But is it really very fair (to use the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's word) to introduce any policy, principles or terms other than those that Max wished and the original contributors to our forum were first attracted to and continue to be happy with? This what was made it a special place - do we want it to be turned into the same as every other ordinary forum? An ordered but ordinary forum where this or that not permitted and you are only allowed to do this in this way? I find it ironic and sad to now be accused by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing of contributing anti-Mudcat posts. How are such posts now defined? That any view posted that does not agree with the constant changes and restrictions that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team still wishes to impose upon our forum - will be viewed as an anti-Mudcat post? I continue to be one of the biggest supporters of Max's concept of our forum and I accept the reality that I will not see things posted that are to my taste. To be accused of being anti-anything because I may not agree with my fellow poster and now Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team latest restritions to impose on our forum - is not acceptable to me. I can probably put up with the example he sets of publicly being calling me a 'buffoon' and worse by him - but to accuse me of anti-Mudcat posts is too much. If the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wishes to be universially loved and admired and to see only what is to his taste on this forum -perhaps he should realise is not going to get his form of required peace here. Perhaps it is time that he formed his own forum - rather than continue to wish to change the best aspects of our forum. Then peace may have a chance on our forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Wolfgang Date: 24 Apr 06 - 11:15 AM The judgement of the Editors in these matters is final and will be exercised without apology, explanation or compensation. I did read that remark on another site. Looks like a good policy to me. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 06 - 05:46 AM Affected by the Licensing Act 2003 has now been re-opened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 06 - 05:09 AM So the lesson is - if any poster wishes any thread to be closed they are safe to post personal attacks to it or to intentionally flood it with different subjects and encourage others to follow suit. And to be able to all this in perfect safety. Although certain of our favoured posters have always done this and been perfectly safe no matter how questionable their conduct and the example set by this bullying conduct may be.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 06 - 05:02 AM This was the editing comment. OK, so the discussion of Martin Gibson has gone on long enough. If you wish to discuss his trip to Europe with him in a more positive way, do it in his most recent thread (click). This thread has become an extended personal attack, so it's closed. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 24 Apr 06 - 05:00 AM Martin Gibson to visit Europe Has been closed. Seemingly because it has been judged to be a personal attack thread -that had gone on long enough? What is the permitted length of time for such threads? Why is it the thread itself that is subject to some form of imposed action and not the offending posts and posters? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: dianavan Date: 23 Apr 06 - 10:54 PM I wish the moderators would treat all posts objectively. I wish they would treat all members with the same respect they give Martin. Today I asked that Martin's European threads be combined because they were on the same topic (I thought that was the policy) and as a result Joe closed one of the threads with a comment that he was doing it because too many people were bashing Martin. Seemed a bit odd since it was Martin that started the thread. It was also odd because he didn't say it was because the threads were all related. Instead he decided to defend poor Martin from the other Mudcatters. Wish he were as vigilant when Martin spews his vile, personal attacks on others.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Apr 06 - 05:22 PM Why? |