 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Do you need to be censored?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 19 Apr 06 - 02:31 PM http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=90535&messages=302#1717294
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: autolycus Date: 19 Apr 06 - 06:28 PM I'm a good boy so I don't need to be censored. So just be sensible, don't ask silly questions - on second thoughts , that'd be ok, don't insult,be amusing, don't grind everyone down, basically don't say basically and be nice. Easy. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: kendall Date: 19 Apr 06 - 08:43 PM I hope he doesn't do it, but I wouldn't blame Max if he pulls the plug. This was a great site until the brats moved in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 20 Apr 06 - 03:56 AM I agree with you Kendall, the laissez faire attitude of this site is becoming it's downfall. Giok. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 20 Apr 06 - 04:35 AM This is our forum and it it comprised (almost) entirely of what we choose to post. If there is anything wrong with it now - it is the fault of what we choose to post or respond to on it. It up to us all to correct it by posting differently - or to go away and stop moaning about - trying to excude and blaming everyone but ourselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 20 Apr 06 - 04:55 AM Do you have your own private pulpit to rant from Roger, or do you rent one on a part time basis from Obsessives R Us? Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: autolycus Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:50 AM 'Giok' - thread drift, methinks. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 20 Apr 06 - 06:24 AM Do you need to be censored? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 20 Apr 06 - 07:04 AM Have you stopped beating your wife? G. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: GUEST Date: 20 Apr 06 - 07:09 AM How do you differentiate the "brats" from the non-brats? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: catspaw49 Date: 20 Apr 06 - 07:16 AM Brats nave a coarser texture and different spices than say, Italian sausage or the common frankfurter. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: kendall Date: 20 Apr 06 - 08:01 AM The brats, in my opinion, are the ones who insist that they should have some right to post whatever they want, regardless who they may insult with their childish behavior. "He looked at me"...."well you looked at me first"! Grow up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:39 AM BRIAN: Don't you, eh, pass judgment on other people, or you might get judged yourself. COLIN: What? BRIAN: I said, 'Don't pass judgment on other people, or else you might get judged, too.' COLIN: Who, me? BRIAN: Yes. COLIN: Oh. Ooh. Thank you very much. BRIAN: Well, not just you. All of you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:48 AM Don't you need to be censored? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: GUEST Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:51 AM Thanks Spaw, that helps. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: katlaughing Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:23 AM go away and stop moaning about - trying to excude and blaming everyone but ourselves. Live by your own words, Roger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:32 AM 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: John MacKenzie Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:18 PM I have no problem with that Roger, it's just that somehow you keep leaking onto other threads, unfortunately! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:01 AM Do you not already have all the tools you need to deal with things you judge to be boring or in any other way not to your taste? Can you not decide for yourself what to read or respond to? Do you really need some other poster to make this decision for you? Do you need to be censored? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:14 AM Have you stopped beating your wife? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:16 AM So Shambolina....... Do you not see that all of your efforts on all of your non-issues are going nowhere except to increased bandwidth? Can you not decide for yourself that all your pissing and moaning is simply pissing and moaning? Do you need me to keep reminding you that the FAQ says:"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."....and Max has obviously approved that statement? Do you need a frontal lobotomy or have you already had one perhaps? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:53 AM 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: catspaw49 Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:07 AM Say whatever you like Sham.......No one is closing this thread but always remember............. "The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:09 AM The concept of a right to impose all of those things being kept in reserve is one that few of us would argue with. However we may have some justification to argue when such powers are used as a matter of routine and selectively against certain targets but not against others. When those trusted to keep the peace indulge themselves in abusive personal attacks and encourage others to follow this example. And when most of this imposed censorship is undertaken to shape our forum to the tastes of a few and all under the excuse of protecting us from abusive personal attacks. Methods which now the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has publicly admitted have failed to impose the required peace and who now proposes to turn our BS forum into a private members club and to screen all Guest posts to the music section - but does not wish the posters there to be informed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:12 AM Gee....Identical to the other thread!!! How Shamblecentric of you!!! The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the ForumSpaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: autolycus Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:29 PM Y'know, just at the moment, I'm not sure I wouldn't like some flack. 'Cos sometimes I post something decent and get ignored. My impresssion is the Shambles doesn't get censored that much in that way. Perhaps I'm just not asking enough questions. Is that the way to get not ignored? Maybe, Shambles, I've got the hang of how to post so that they don't get pulled. Or maybe there are some (no names, no packdrill), who have an unconscious need to be vilified, and just magnetise attacks without conscious awareness. If so, good luck. ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 21 Apr 06 - 06:25 PM Christ! I've stayed away from Roger's Bleat 'n Greet threads for over a week, and when I look in, he's still repeating last Tuesday. It's "Groundhog Day" on the Mudcat! New entry for the Guinness Book of Records....World's longest tunnel: The Shambles' field of vision. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:03 PM Do you need to be censored? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 06 - 05:28 AM Very few posters feel they do need to be censored. Many still do seem to think that others need to be censored. But whatever – the question is never simply to have censorship or not. The introduction of any form of censorship is never the end of the story – it is just the beginning. For there are many aspects to consider. Such as, the best way to do it, what is to be censored, by whom and for what object are. These are the sort of questions that never seem to be even addressed by those who would seem to see no need for them to be censored but still see every need for everyone else to subject to it. Because these questions have never been addressed, we have the current well-meaning 'system'. Which has no clear object or rules to protect anyone from abuse and is based only on an individual's judgement – in practice this means one individual's personal judgement. Apart from the question of the objectivity of judges who also wish to post as a fellow poster and the confusion of knowing what opinion or suggestion is expressed as an editing position and what is expressed as a fellow poster – the fact remains that one poster's judgement is as good or as bad as every other. So when these judgements are imposed and the attempts made to publicly justify the judgement passed – it encourages an atmosphere where everyone considers they also have the right to also pass their judgement on the worth of their fellow posters. To speculate publicly on their assumed motives and to call them names and be as abusive to them as the example being set by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff – his known edit-button holders, his anonymous edit-button holders and their few loyal and vocal supporters. If peace is the object - my hope is that it will finally be accepted as a starting point - that no poster has (or should have) any control over what another chooses to post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 22 Apr 06 - 06:41 AM I had the Vet put my dog down last week, it was horrible and very sad, but necessary! There comes a time when you just can't put off the necessary decisions! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 06 - 08:16 AM If that is true - you have my best wishes. Folk mean well when they say things like - they were like part of the family. But they are family and the grieving process is the same but made a little more difficult by the fact that you perhaps don't feel you can show it - as folk may think - it was only a dog etc. Our Chudley has just turned 13 (or 91) and is very wobbly on his legs now so we may have to make the same decision soon. Not looking forward to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Wolfgang Date: 22 Apr 06 - 10:12 AM my hope is that it will finally be accepted as a starting point - that no poster has (or should have) any control over what another chooses to post. (Shambles) If that is true then why did you start a couple of threads today in an attempt to control a discussion? Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Bill D Date: 22 Apr 06 - 11:00 AM Wolfgang makes the point! "....no poster has (or should have) any control over what another chooses to post." If, Roger, you mean what you say, then 'no control' would mean NO control....which would mean that you are breaking your own version of what the rule should be by asking people to stop posting to 'your' threads or to stop 'thread drift'. You seem to be asking for universal VOLUNTARY adherence to a concept of NO censorship, NO 'personal judgements' by anyone OF anyone, NO irrelevant posting on a thread, and NO moderators, open OR secret to oversee the voluntary adherence to this Utopian concept. Read that last paragraph again...can you comprehend how absolutely impossible it would be to implement such a system in ANY practical way? There is an old expression..."doing that is like trying to herd cats"...and what you seem to be asking for is very similar. Hundreds of individuals, all with different ideas of 'relevance', 'judgement', 'censorship' and 'imposing', with minds that see things differently during a thread, and whose thoughts patterns DO drift in ways that yours may not. That is why some folks keep re-posting that message "The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum".....it is the ONLY way to have ONE rule that covers the situation...even if it doesn't make everyone happy all the time! It's too bad that some of the applications of the rule jars YOUR notion of how things ought to run...but there it is....it's Max's place, with HIS staff interpreting the rules in the best practical way they can manage. It seems to be ok with a LARGE majority..... I will refrain from a lengthy metaphor here on "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 06 - 12:05 PM If, Roger, you mean what you say, then 'no control' would mean NO control....which would mean that you are breaking your own version of what the rule should be by asking people to stop posting to 'your' threads or to stop 'thread drift'. In the land of the hypocrite and under the double standard - one can only try to do one's best. Given the provocation and insults - I think I do pretty well not to respond in kind. I make no claim to perfection.........I just want to be able to hold a discussion - where it OK and safe for all posters to express differing views and to see their words remain as posted. Accepting that you have no control over what a fellow posters chooses to post - is the starting point. It does not mean you shouldn't make a polite (and preferably private) request for them to change their posting choices. But if they choose not to - it simply means that you always then accept that as a fellow invited guest - they have as much right to post what they choose as you do. And if you don't like this - you leave the party. As a fellow invited guest - you have no right to subject others to personal judgements, encouraging others to publicly judge their worth, call them names, have public conversations about them and generally bully them in the hope that they change what they post or they leave. Do you think you and certain others do have this right? You seem to be asking for universal VOLUNTARY adherence to a concept of NO censorship, NO 'personal judgements' by anyone OF anyone, NO irrelevant posting on a thread, and NO moderators, open OR secret to oversee the voluntary adherence to this Utopian concept. Nothing Utopian about such a concept - it is what we call society and this showing of mutual respect face-to face generally works. This example worked pretty well on our forum - until a different example was set and followed. If you feel you do not need to be censored - why insist that others must? If you make no personal judgements - you are unlikely to be judged in return. It is not me who is asking that there be no irrelevant posting on a thread - it would appear to be Mick's rules. I can ignore them and not respond in kind to them. Can't you do this? If there is to be censorship - then it needs to be objective, have a clear object, a few clear rules that are seen to be consistently and fairly applied to all posters and not be undertaken by those who also wish to be part of the game and in order to shape our forum to their personal requirements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 06 - 12:21 PM If that is true then why did you start a couple of threads today in an attempt to control a discussion? Wolfgang I am now told by the chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and those who support him that - any subject MUST have a clear title to reflect the subject and that changes to the thread title will be imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission. I think it may even be you who insists that any requests for information or subjects for discussion MUST be clearly titled to enable the requested information to be given. So following your logic, posts requesting information or inviting discussion on baseball players, films and grits have little chance of a constructive response when they are hidden in a thread titled Music posts by Guests to be reviewed (2). So I provided thread titles for these subjects to enable all constructive conversation to continue. I even provided one where my own comments could be provided for public judgement and riducule - as one poster seemed to think there was a need for this. I note that you have found and contributed to this one....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 22 Apr 06 - 12:46 PM How much have you contributed towards the upkeep of this site Roger? G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Apr 06 - 09:06 AM My view with sessions is pretty much the same as I view our forum. It is a public place everyone has the same rights to make music as anyone else. The only thing you can do - if you do not like this fact - is to leave and start a session of your own. I have led a regular session for over 6 years and this reality is made very clear to all partipants. It works very well. Yes there are individuals who others find too loud or otherwise a pest. It is not easy to keep everyone happy and some drive others away. But any comments about these individuals who are judged to be pests are not encouraged. If any particpant feels that bullying another is acceptable - they discover that it is not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Bill D Date: 23 Apr 06 - 10:20 AM I read and read that last post and got hung up on this: " It is not easy to keep everyone happy and some drive others away. But any comments about these individuals who are judged to be pests are not encouraged." IF some upset and drive others away, what IS done about the pests? Do I understand that in a session that you 'guide', the principle is that the 'feelings' of the pests are considered more important than the feelings of those being pestered? "comments ....are not encouraged." If I read correctly between the lines here, you are applying the same concept RT as you do VT...any negative comment on the behavior of others is a greater transgression than the behavior itself. If someone doesn't like a real pest at a session, his option is to keep quiet...or leave. I suppose consistency is one kind of virtue, but I think you have a bit of misplaced sense of values if you indeed feel that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Apr 06 - 10:38 AM The bit that strikes me as cogent in the context of Rogers vendetta against Joe and all clones is his statement. "I have led a regular session for over 6 years and this reality is made very clear to all partipants." It is classic control freakery personified that statement, and gives me a clue as to Rogers personality. That and the story he told of telling another member of staff to 'Go forth and multiply' which tells me he's arrogant, and can be rude if he wants to be, but for the purposes of this campaign to change the Mudcat to his own image, he chooses to suppress this urge. Perhaps he's canvassing for support, and doesn't want to alienate everybody else by being foul mouthed as well! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ How much have you contributed towards the upkeep of the Mudcat Roger? Giok. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: GUEST Date: 23 Apr 06 - 10:44 AM Obsessives rarely recognise the trait in themselves do they giok? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Apr 06 - 10:54 AM You mean like the fear of posting under your own name, aka cowardice sweetie? G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Bill D Date: 23 Apr 06 - 10:55 AM Well, IF the problem is "control freakery", it is no doubt easier if one is the 'leader' of record...and if the session is the only one handy; (a little music is better than NO music for many folks), but it is just a nuisance in a virtual forum where someone else makes the rules and you become the pest by trying to 'herd' the rest. This statement got me "Nothing Utopian about such a concept - it is what we call society and this showing of mutual respect face-to face generally works.." No, that is NOT how society usually works....people do NOT agree on how to behave in groups. What actually happens is that there are ways of coping and, in some cases, rules for dealing with it. And, yeah, that 'can' include "imposing judgement" when required. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:51 PM If someone doesn't like a real pest at a session, his option is to keep quiet...or leave. By Jove - after all these years! Yes...Only by virtue of first recognising the FACT that like our forum is a public place where no one has any more rights than anyone else - so is the pub. We are all equally customers of the pub in OUR session as we are all equally invited guests of Max here on OUR forum. Is it the concept of everyone in our session receiving equal treatment and all shapes and sizes being tolerated, that you have such a problem with? Or is it the concept that any bullying and sniping at any session members is thought unacceptable and not encouraged? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:18 PM Affected by the Licensing Act 2003 has been closed. I have asked for it to be re-opened and explained the reasons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: Stringsinger Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:50 PM Joe, i think that the criticism is a red-herring. Mudcat is wide open and free-ranging with all kinds of ideas. It's real democracy. I think that personal attacks that are abusive and do not serve the public interest could be deleted. Someone has to make that decision and from what I've read, the right decision has been made because Mudcat is one of the most interesting and informative reads on the net. It's also one of the most tolerant. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Apr 06 - 04:50 PM Yes but do you need to be censored Frank? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: katlaughing Date: 23 Apr 06 - 05:20 PM YOU need to be banned, Roger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: The Shambles Date: 23 Apr 06 - 05:22 PM Why? |
|
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: 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? |