BS: Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 02:34 PM

A few posts back, Shambles compared himself to Ghandi. The thought occured then that perhaps he should compare himself also to another Staunch Defender of Freedom of Speech.

It was just a passing thought; and I don't mean to say that Shambles is like either Ghandi or this other prophet. I will not venture to suggest which end of the spectrum between the two lies (no pun intended) closest to Shambles' position(s).

I will note that the link is to the "official" biography written by the prophet himself, and does bear a slight resemblence to "Shambles methods" for making the truth appear somewhat different than reality. Some who may be familiar with the teachings of this prophet may understand(?).

I have looked briefly at the list of 10,368 posts by Shambles since he "rejoined" us in August 2004, and don't find any that stand out as anything I'm sorry I missed. I have read this thread in its entirety, and don't find it a total waste of time as there were a half dozen quite interesting opinions expressed. I'm sorry, Shambles; but none of them were yours.

I do find lots of cut-and-paste, reminiscent of undergraduate researchers who mistake out of context plagiarism for research; but few actual opinions, so I must presume Shambles doesn't really have any. (An evaluation subject to amendment, but I'll not make a special point to look for a contrary example.) I made a special effort to look for pasteups that did have a cogent context to give some validity to their being pasted - and didn't find any really significant ones.

I did find the pasting of Joe's comment specifically dealing with editing of PMs as a "proof" that Joe lied about editing of public thread posts somewhat offensive, but not surprising.

And I do rather feel that the extrapolation of Joe's re-opening of the thread into a guarantee that individual posts containing personal attacks are immune in this thread extremely childish (but consistent).

Altogether, I think I'm rather bored with this.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 02:41 PM

A good and fair asessment I think John. Nice to see a well thought out post.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 02:44 PM

So, in conclusion . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 02:49 PM

There is a difference between a troll and someone who just wants an emotional response though, LH, and I guess I should have said that in my earlier post. A troll is specifically looking to get an angry response to his or her post, or he or she is trying to get other people to fight with each other. It's not always easy to determine who is doing this and who isn't though, and that can be a bit of a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 02:51 PM

"and that can be a bit of a problem."

I would suggest that that can be MOST of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 07:01 PM

Hi Martin. Hope the Brits are taking good care of you.
In answer to your question, apparently the entire cast of this soap opera cares, or they wouldn't continue to keep it going.

Meanwhile, back in As the Mudcat Turns, will Clinton Hammond .............?

And will Spaw's evil twin who had amnesia turn up to sow dissent among the 'Catters?

Will CarolC's double-dactyls land her in hot water with the poetry fundies?

Also watch for a brief guest appearance from WYSIWYG in a cameo with Mbo at her side.

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 01:51 AM

No one's a troll until a 'moderator' says that person is a troll

As this is one of the lesser names that I have publicly been called by The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff, most of the named edit button holders and anonyomous ones - does this mean that I am officially now all of these things?

To all those who would post only to judge me or any other poster's worth and those who rush to post only to agree - will you please accept that as we have as much right to have our say here as anyone else and if you do not like sharing our forum with all those posters who Max has invited - no one is stopping you from leaving.

As demonstrated over many year of seemingly having to be be subjected to this for expressing and evidencing a view - none of these personal judgements made of me by my fellow posters will result in me stopping being a contributor here. So perhaps some attnetion could be made to the thread's subject matter - rather than concentrating on the thread's originator (who has already read it all)?

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 02:00 AM

A few posts back, Shambles compared himself to Ghandi.

Perhaps the rest of a personal judgement of the worth of a fellow poster that starts off with the assumption that the posting of a quotation means that the poster is comparing themselves to the person who made the quote - should be read with caution - if such a post really needs to be posted in the first place?

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 02:15 AM

self-editing is like getting a good haircut. People can see you better.

small is beautiful

less is more

um..

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 02:26 AM

I did find the pasting of Joe's comment specifically dealing with editing of PMs as a "proof" that Joe lied about editing of public thread posts somewhat offensive, but not surprising.

I think perhaps what is surprising is how selective some posters can be about what they find offensive? It is not seemingly offensive conduct for a poster to be subjected to personal judgements and abuse from a so-called moderator but it would appear to be offensive for the victim to quote it as the firm evidence of this conduct.

For without providing such evidence - these offensive posts from moderators are publicly denied' minimised or justified.

Given the extent and nature of many of the personal judgements encouraged to be publicly made about this fellow posters by the usual suspects over this long time - it is probably understandable for a 'newer' poster to assume there is some real justification for such a concerted reaction.................The fact is there isn't. I just hold, express and evidence a different view.

But I do not see the 'comment specifically dealing with editing of PMs' - that you find so offensive. Nor the accusation of mine that you refer to.

Perhaps you could clear this up?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 02:33 AM

when a post is made (in the middle of a forest of posts), and nobody reads it, does that post exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 04:15 AM

Rape is the only crime in which the victim becomes the accused.

Freda Adler

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 05:07 AM

Roger, it's your endless repetition that causes most of the opprobrium you get.
The insertion of other peoples quotations in connection with this monotonous diatribe is at best dubious, and are at worst irrelevant non sequiturs.
You see we all know what your view is but you insist on repeating it ad nauseam, and ad infinitum. It is therefore no wonder that the responses keep coming.
As you have told us many times, it is not necessary to respond to your posts, it is equally unnecessary for you to continually re-post your unchanging and obviously unchangeable views.
I therefore suggest that the number of judgements on your obsession will decrease in direct proportion to your not posting the same words over and over again. The only thing that seems to change is the order in which you post these words in an apparently endless stream.
In short, the less you post, the less people will respond!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 05:55 AM

You see we all know what your view is but you insist on repeating it ad nauseam, and ad infinitum. It is therefore no wonder that the responses keep coming.

If there is a logic there - can someone please explain this.

Like most posters, I post in order to get responses - hopefully to what I may say in these posts rather than on how my personal worth may be publicly judged by by my invited fellow guests.

If you are bored or in any other way disenchanted by mine or anyone else's posts - the answer must be pretty clear now - even to the my most committed of my stalkers.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Alba
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 06:07 AM

The Freda Adler quote. Anyone care to expand on it's context within this Thread topic?
Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 06:18 AM

It would seem that there are crimes like rape and child abuse where the victim becomes the accused.

Where the victim subjected to this form of bullying becomes subject to yet more when they dare to try to bring the truth of the complaint out in the open.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Alba
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 06:34 AM

Interesting 'take' on the subject matter of Adler's qoute.
Can't say I see the connection with this Thread topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 07:02 AM

.........Oh me too.........

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: kendall
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 07:12 AM

Stalkers? Are you serious?
Logic? I understand what Giok said, and he's right.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 07:28 AM

So what it all boils down to is this.
Roger posts to elicit responses. (He said so)
Roger doesn't like most of our responses (He says so endlessly)
Roger only posts in order to get the responses he wants, and is upset when it doesn't happen that way.
Ergo....Roger is a control freak (Yes that logical conclusion is a personal judgement by me, based on evidence supplied by you Roger!)
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 09:00 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 04:15 AM

Rape is the only crime in which the victim becomes the accused.

Freda Adler

******************************************************************

"If I laugh at any mortal thing, tis that I may not weep."...Lord Byron (George Gordon)

Pardon me for laughing here but it is as Byron says......Are you really so pathetic Roger that you are comparing some BSing on an internet forum with RAPE? Man, I really do fear for your mental health! You were really just joking right?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 10:17 AM

You may have missed the following editing comment - as it was inserted into an existing thread and did not refresh the thread

Actually I tried to just ****out the offensive word, but I couldn't change it in your "name". Hence I could get it out of the message, but not the name. I deleted it because the term was offensive to females.

Mudelf

The following post seems to have escaped the attention and imposed censorship of our anonymous protector.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:15 AM

BTW, I would be remiss if I didn't bite here so here we go.......

Okay Sham......I know I'm going to regret this.........You seem to have added a new phrase to your volumes of "Sham's Liturgical Bullshit." What the fuck are these "founding principles?" I get this vision of Max in colonial garb and sitting with Franklin and Jefferson................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 10:24 AM

I agree Sham.......The phrase "Sham's Liturgical Bullshit" is offensive to both women AND men.............And BTW, we are still operating on your "founding principles" as you chose to call them. Actually this is just a grand experiment of the Spiegel lad and I know he's enjoying it!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Pseudolus
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 11:42 AM

Reading Sham's posts is like watching a soap opera. you can leave for months and come back to the same conversation. Only difference is, more substance in the soap opera.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 11:46 AM

If you are bored or in any other way disenchanted by mine or anyone else's posts - the answer must be pretty clear now - even to the my most committed of my stalkers.

Has the penny really not dropped yet?

Do you need to be cnsored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 08:52 PM

Where has my little Scotch stalkers usual post after mine gone?

It was here when I last looked and I judged that post was speaking a lot of sense.

Did it need to be censored for this reason?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Alba
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 09:01 PM

Ah the dreaded stalking by a Dram of Whiskey...that can be quite a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:39 AM

Pseudolus, fuck off and get your own analogy!

I started the soap opera analogy a while back, and you're jumping in on it now!

It's MY analogy, ya prick!

Go and think up something original!

Respectfully yours.

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:52 AM

Ah the dreaded stalking by a Dram of Whiskey...that can be quite a problem.

Now I seem to be stalked by a double Scotch.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:57 AM

Go and think up something original!

How about this?

A true jellyfish story

You do seem to need analogy - but do you need to be censored and someone to protect you from the true jellyfish?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:51 AM

Do we need to curb the troublemakers?   

Has now been subject to imposed closure - by persons unknown and for reasons unstated.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 03:03 AM

Meanwhile 'the mob' - once encouraged are still 'out for blood' on the following.....Which remains open.

Martin Gibson to visit Europe

Perhaps before there are any suggestions as to how these are to be curbed - what is needed first is some discussion on what TROUBLE on our forum is?

And what exactly is a TROUBLEMAKER?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 03:09 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Seamus Kennedy - PM
"Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:39 AM

Pseudolus, fuck off and get your own analogy!

I started the soap opera analogy a while back, and you're jumping in on it now!

It's MY analogy, ya prick!

Go and think up something original!

Respectfully yours.

Seamus "

Will Pseudolus phuck orf?
Will Max get an advertising contract from Proctor and Gamble?
Will Seamus share his analogy with the forum?
Find out the answer to these and other burning questions on.....

As the Bile Churns.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 04:40 AM

I may disagree with what you say

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 04:59 AM

I have every right, as a moderator of this forum, to judge the worth of the posts. That is exactly what moderators do, in addition to the housekeeping. We apply what we know of the guidelines to the posts of those who exercise the privilege (note: I did not say "right") of posting here. My right is generated by the obligation I have as a moderator to perpetuate this site for the majority who post here. They expect we will accept the task of not allowing the forum to crumble from the attacks of trolls. It is what we do.

So go ahead and see if you can slip another false premise by. But in the meantime, any attacks, or redundant threads will be closed or deleted.

Mick

Is it not possible to view any right as a privilge or any privilge as a right? Would it be better not to make a distinction?

Do we not all have certain unalienable rights?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 05:15 AM

Non posting of judgements week (year)

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Alba
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:21 AM

"Now I seem to be stalked by a double Scotch"

No Roger, you never mix single malts:)
I am a Laphroaig while the other Malt is a Glenlivet.
A total waste of Whisky to fling those two fine drams together in a Glass as each are unique in their own way.
J:)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:23 AM

Will Shambles Strike a Nerve with his constant preaching?

Or will his long lost eye patch wearing twin brother come back form the war with a vendetta and an eye for his wife?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:25 AM

I guess we will have to keep an eye out for this event. (so to speak)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:31 AM

an eye for an eye and a truth for a truth..

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:35 AM

The chord has been struck and the cauldron is bubbling.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:37 AM

Rodney Shambles, tennis pro, gambler, raconteur. What questions will he ask of the MudCat? Will he support his brother or oppose him? Find out tomorrow on "As the Bile Churns".

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:12 PM

Do you need to be censored?

why all the closed threads?

What is a redundant thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:28 PM

All the repetitiive posts you have been making for years is the best definition of redundant posts I can think of.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:31 PM

Ye gads he was hiding behind his kilt all the time. Waiting to pounce.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:16 AM

I'm open to any and all suggestions, but it seems to me that it's time for members-only posting to BS, with membership paswords sent only to those with valid e-mail addresses, and for full review of Guest posts to the music section before they are released to public view. I see no value in the continued combat we've had, or in our continuing to protect the anonymity of those who want to cause trouble anonymously.

If you have a better idea, express it. Try to say something new, something true, and something constructive.
Joe Offer

Joe -
Those who quite obviously do not like the fact that the site's owner has always welcomed contributions from the public, are welcome post elsewhere or start a forum of their own with whatever restrictions they wish to impose.

When are you going take this constructive course of action and finally leave the rest of us in peace....?

If you need to be censored on your new site - I will only be too pleased to take up that role...All you have to do is ask.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Pied Piper
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 04:48 AM

So your speeking for Max now Shambles?

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 05:06 AM

My views are simply based on Max's own public statements.

If it was not his intention to open our forum for the the public's contributions - I think we can all safely accept that he would not have done so.

And if he wished to now exclude the public or impose further restrictions to posting - on the lines that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has formally proposed - I am sure he would have given some indication of that intention.............

I am sure that Max does need me or anyone else to speak for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 12:20 PM

Was this NEW bit part of the formal proposal made to Max?

- and for full review of Guest posts to the music section before they are released to public view

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: C. Ham
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 12:44 PM

I am sure that Max does need me or anyone else to speak for him.

Why can't he speak for himself?