 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Is closing threads censorship?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Once Famous Date: 02 May 06 - 10:14 PM Just asking. Seems to be, I guess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: number 6 Date: 02 May 06 - 10:20 PM Do you mean closing or deleting? I'd say deleting certainly is ... closing isn't as you can still access them .... if you want to continue on with the same subject just reopen a new thread. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Alba Date: 02 May 06 - 10:31 PM I asked for a Thread I had started to be closed today. It was. The Thread is still there however, intact and can still be read by anyone that wants to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 02 May 06 - 10:50 PM Martin - you are NOT a troll (trolls live in kingdoms of superiority)
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Amos Date: 02 May 06 - 11:13 PM No. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 02:06 AM Censorship and Attitude rolled into one Any form of editing action that is imposed without the originator's prior knowledge and permission is censorship. Any form of editing action or thread closure taken to prevent discussion on the thread's subject (even at the request of anyone) is censorship. If the originator does not like the direction their thread has taken when it is clearly following their chosen title - they can start a new one with the title of their choice. Perhaps this thread can be re-opened to enable the discussion on the thread's subject to continue in it? There is no need to close the original thread BECAUSE there are discussions trying to take place following the thread's title and the originator or anyone else wishes to prevent this discussion. This latest example is setting a questionable precedent and would appear to agreed to in this case only because our editing team are seen in this thread to be totally incompetent and are only too please to find any reason to close it. You follow the link provided and judge for yourself - while you have the chance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Doug Chadwick Date: 03 May 06 - 02:31 AM There's an old thread that has just been resurrected on the subject of "What is the worst song you ever heard?" In there, there are 31 links to other threads with similar titles. Seven of these have been closed, although there seems to be nothing controversial about them. Some may have been closed because they were getting too long, in the days before you could look at just the last 50 posts, but others were closed after only a few days worth of posts. Other, longer, threads remain open Why are some closed and others left open when the content seems so similar? DC
As a general rule, we don't reopen threads that were closed because they became combative. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 02:59 AM As posters are then invited to start another - the imposed closure of threads serves no useful purpose at all. It has been established that the closing any thread presents no technical advantage to the operation of our forum. A forum that managed perfectly well when no threads were closed and all remained open for future contributions. Our protectors with edit buttons only started closing threads when and because they were shown how it could be done. Perhaps it can now stop? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 05:34 AM It is certainly censorship when the thread's closure prevents further contributions - except for some who insist on having the last word. Actually those posts were deleted for precisely that reason. The judgement was made by the powers that be that they should be put back in. Not much I can do about that. -------------------------------------------- If you have good reason to reopen a closed thread, contact me by e-mail or personal message, and I'll most probably honor your request. Joe Offer As you know - I did have a good reason - I did PM you - and you did not honour my request. I wll leave you to explain to our forum what your thoughts were on my request. But is this not backwards? Shouldn't YOU have to find a good reason to close a thread rather than posters having to find a reason that you then judge good enough to re-open it? Posters do not (currently) have to find a good reason to start a thread - why should they be expected to have to find a good reason for you to re-open it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 05:38 AM Old "BS" threads are routinely closed after a time, for a number of reasons. Joe Offer Why, for what reasons exactly and in order to protect us from what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John O'L Date: 03 May 06 - 06:06 AM Shambles I would like to take this opportuinity to express my gratitude that you are here to ask these questions. I for one would never think to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 06:30 AM You mean you don't want me to be banned? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Alba Date: 03 May 06 - 07:00 AM I asked for a Thread I had started to be closed Yesterday. It was. The Thread is still there however, intact and can still be read by anyone that wants to. I have received a PM stating that it was uncool of me to ask for my Thread to be closed. That I had no "right" to do that. Well a lot of people seem to have 'rights' around here, why don't I? Seems that even Guests have rights that I don't have. [Roger I also PMd you yesterday as to why I had asked for the Thread that I started to be closed.] See here's the rub. (and this is only PART of my reason for asking for my Thread to be closed and I only supply this part for the purposes of a slight insight, not an explanation) I started that Thread as a bit of fun..(won't be making that mistake around here again for a while) My opening post on the Thread made that clear. For a while the Thread was a tad humorous. In retrospect I should never have gone near the 'sacred' subject of Mudcat censorship and Shambles countless Threads. The final staw on my particular Thread (which by then had gone far off my original idea) was a nasty personal attack aimed at a Member by a vicious Guest. Do you know what is not 'cool'...well it is not cool when absolutely no-one even bothered with that Guest's cutting remarks. I mean why would anyone be upset about a bit of character ripping. Such a minor matter, but boy o boy did people get upset when they found that a couple of Threads about the Weather had gone missing! That imo is uncool. You know Folks, Joe Offer is a hellava Guy. He takes a lot of time out of his Life for this place and the volunteers are way cool people too, they also give their time to this place. I seriously have a lot of respect for these People. I have never met any of them and only know who some are because they have made their names public (big mistake that IMO) I am continually amazed by the fact that explanations for moderation and editing are supplied for the most disgruntled People, even Guests get explanations now!. It would not be something that was done in any other Forum. Yet even though that happens here it still isn't enough. The Moderators continually give the rabid dogs their bare Arms to chew on! If you are looking for someone to blame for the closing of MY Thread then the buck stops here. Right here. Right here at ALBA. I am sure that some will take great delight in ripping my Cyber ID apart, a good excuse to vent any surpressed dislike of the Mudcat Identity known as Alba. God knows we have many Experts in THAT field around here these days. A whole bucket load of self appointed Judges but no Jury it seems. If some feel the need to attempt to destroy this place with their Ego problems it would seem that they are free to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Wolfgang Date: 03 May 06 - 07:36 AM Any form of editing action that is imposed without the originator's prior knowledge and permission is censorship. (Shambles) Nonsense, complete nonsense. Each single book or article or letter to the editor I have ever written in my life would have been considered to have been 'censored' accroding to this definition. Each newspaper is censored at a daily basis according to this definition. The word loses all its distinctive power if it is applied so indiscriminate. Why, for what reasons exactly and in order to protect us from what? (Shambles) Shambles, you have a collection of all Joe Offer quotes over the last 7 years and quote from it at least once daily. In the spirit of user friendliness of this site it would be a service if you could link to the last time you have asked the same questions and would quote Joe Offers response from then. Or you could tell which part of the old response is not yet satisfactory for you. Merely repeating a question that has been asked and responded to without giving new people the opportunity to read the old responses is quite impolite. And it gives me the impression that you are not honest with us for you lie (implicitely) about your motivation for asking the question. You ask it in a way that reminds the naive reader of a simple quest for information but since that information is already available to you lack of information is not your real motive. If you would be honest (as you claim you are in many posts; quote available) with us or with yourself you would give us another reason like (1) I didn't like the response then or (2) I have my fun increasing Joe Offers workload or (3) if I get on their nerves for long enough they might prefer to change to rules to suit me. I don't know what the real motive is, but I know you are not honest with us in your agenda. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 07:37 AM If some feel the need to attempt to destroy this place with their Ego problems it would seem that they are free to do so. So it would appear and with the willing help of a few posts like that one - this would now appear to be happening. But those whose Ego problems now make them feel qualified to act as both judge and jury and who impose their judgement on their fellow posters do not need any further encouragment to close threads and impose yet more rules and restrictions. For they do not seem to know any other course. They will not stop - even after admitting the failure of such measures........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Grab Date: 03 May 06 - 07:40 AM Any form of editing action that is imposed without the originator's prior knowledge and permission is censorship. Yes, although whether that's good or bad is open to discussion. Personally I'm not aware of any unmoderated internet forum which allows/allowed anonymous posting, has/had any significant number of members, and remained successful and flame-free. There simply is no such thing, and I'd rather that Mudcat didn't turn into Usenet, thanks all the same. If that means a more active moderating policy than was done previously, I'd rather see that than lose Mudcat altogether, as Usenet has been lost. Any form of editing action or thread closure taken to prevent discussion on the thread's subject (even at the request of anyone) is censorship. Not so, IMO. For starters, personal insults are not discussions. For seconds, if all posters (or the main poster, know what I'm saying?) are saying the same damn thing without listening, then it's not censorship - there's nothing new being said. For thirds, flame-wars and personal insults tend to attract anonymous posters (for the convenience of stirring things up), and having to go and start another thread puts a damper on this to prevent it going further. For fourths, if you really, really care enough then there's the option of opening a second thread. And for fifths, don't tell us that because of censorship, you, Jack, Carol, MartinGibson and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all have not been given a chance to express your views - that is provably untrue. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 07:41 AM Nonsense, complete nonsense. Each single book or article or letter to the editor I have ever written in my life would have been considered to have been 'censored' accroding to this definition. Each newspaper is censored at a daily basis according to this definition. The word loses all its distinctive power if it is applied so indiscriminate. Piffle. What need is there for any EDITOR on a discussion forum that is open to the public and comprised entirely of poster's contributions and where there is no selection process? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 07:45 AM Following the success of Alba's request shall I expect my request - to re-open all of the threads that I have originated and which have been subject to imposed closure - to be granted? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Once Famous Date: 03 May 06 - 07:54 AM Gargoyle, you might be the first one to vote me out, but I would be the first one to fart in your general direction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Once Famous Date: 03 May 06 - 07:59 AM I think threads mught be closed because many are way too easily offended. Why close threads? Just don't participate in them if you don't want to. Let others who want to continue. There are many threads here that are stupid and worthless and I don't want to have anything to do with, yet they continue. Should those be closed also if someone insists on it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 07:59 AM Like this one. Closing threads |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 03 May 06 - 10:09 AM "Why close threads?" Somewhere, somehow it takes someone's time and money to keep a thread going. (It also takes our planet's natural resources.) The question is - do the people giving the time and money see any point to supporting the thread? If they don't, they get to ax it. People in the free world may have the right to express their opinions, but that doesn't mean they have the right to express them using other peoples' time and money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: katlaughing Date: 03 May 06 - 10:42 AM Alba and Wolfgang, thanks for your postings! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 12:14 PM Somewhere, somehow it takes someone's time and money to keep a thread going. (It also takes our planet's natural resources.) The question is - do the people giving the time and money see any point to supporting the thread? If they don't, they get to ax it. People in the free world may have the right to express their opinions, but that doesn't mean they have the right to express them using other peoples' time and money. No technical reason at all, Shambles. We do it for valid but non-technical reasons that I've explained below. That's why I moved this thread to the "BS" section. Next question? -Joe Offer- Strange as it may seem our forum managed perfectly well when all the threads remained open. Why does everyone now appear to feel that our forum is about judging the worth of and finding and supportings ways to prevent other posters from having their say - when Max provided this opportunity for that very reason? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: jaze Date: 03 May 06 - 12:51 PM Shambles, wouldn't it be easier for you to just start your own forum somewhere else and be the king of it? Apparently Max, the king of this one, is ok with the way things are done or surely he would change it,don't you think? You've complained ad nauseum about this for years and it hasn't changed. I think everyone else on the planet has come to the realization..IT'S NOT LIKELY TO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 03 May 06 - 01:22 PM "Strange as it may seem our forum managed perfectly well when all the threads remained open." no it didn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Grab Date: 03 May 06 - 01:26 PM What need is there for any EDITOR on a discussion forum that is open to the public and comprised entirely of poster's contributions and where there is no selection process? I presume that you've never used Usenet or other email-based groups. If you had, you wouldn't need to ask this question - the answer would be obvious. That aanswer is that when there's no restriction from people posting flames, anonymous off-topic stuff and spam, the signal-to-noise ratio goes down. The more noise, the harder it is to find useful stuff, the less people find the forum useful, and in the end it all dies a death under a mountain of spam and flames. Fair play to Max (and others) for instituting the BS section - it keeps the non-music stuff out of the genuine music, and moderation of the music side is absolutely required to try and reduce noise. Moderation of the BS stuff is not absolutely required - by music standards you could say it's all "noise" - but it's the area where people can chat freely, so if someone repeats the same thing every day, that may be considered "noise" for people who want to chat about other stuff. Off-topicness certainly is, as are personal insults. (Yes I know Joe has insulted you - don't need more bold-text quotes. So have you insulted him, and I don't see anyone quoting bold-text of those.) Following the success of Alba's request shall I expect my request - to re-open all of the threads that I have originated and which have been subject to imposed closure - to be granted? To quote: If you have good reason to reopen a closed thread, contact me by e-mail or personal message, and I'll most probably honor your request. So you need a good reason. Alba may have had one. Whether you do is up to Joe's decision. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 01:39 PM Yes I know Joe has insulted you - don't need more bold-text quotes. So have you insulted him, and I don't see anyone quoting bold-text of those.) The bold text is not to highlight the insults and name-calling that I have been subjected to - it is to indicate editing comments. Had I ever posted abusive personal attacks upon any other poster here - I am sure that these examples would be given...... But the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is not just another poster. The example he sets will be followed and thought acceptable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 03 May 06 - 01:42 PM I don't feel that Alba had "no right" to request that the thread she started be closed. I would never make such a request myself, but that's a reflection of differing attitudes toward "ownership" of a thread. Some folks think of a thread as a boat: If they launch it, they have a right to steer its course. Others, like myself, think of a thread as a message in a bottle: Once you toss it out, you let it go wherever the currents take it. Neither is right nor wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 01:48 PM So you need a good reason. Alba may have had one. Whether you do is up to Joe's decision. And our forum will of course be expected to believe that this will not be a personally motivated decision in any way? Despite the fact that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has recently and publicly called me a buffoon - to add to idiot, looney, asshole etc and that two of our known moderators have publicly stated that I should be banned from our forum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 03 May 06 - 02:01 PM Others, like myself, think of a thread as a message in a bottle: Once you toss it out, you let it go wherever the currents take it. Neither is right nor wrong. When I requested that the originator's chosen thread title should always stay as worded unless they were contacted and gave their permission for a change - the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team made it quite clear that the thread's originator had no such rights or no more rights than any of the rest of the contributors. As the thread - once launched - was a collaborative effort. So which is it? The answer is the same as always - the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team will again be seen to do exactly as he chooses - whilst passing judgement upon and complaining about the conduct of everyone else. Even though he now admits these measures have failed to impose the 'peace' he requires. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Joe Offer Date: 03 May 06 - 02:19 PM Shambles, you seem to be posting a lot of quotes without attribution today, even more than usual. Isn't that misleading? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: M.Ted Date: 03 May 06 - 02:25 PM I might as well come out and say that I am the one who told Alba that I thought she was way out of line in asking that the above mentioned thread be closed--"uncool", I think, was the word I used. I also told her that I thought that the person who closed the thread was a fool. And I think so. Like it or not, once the thread is begun, it becomes the creation of those who choose to post to it. You have no guarantee that anyone will post anything, let alone what you want them to post. This isn't just mudcat, this is the internet. And it isn't just the internet, it's life. Someone has been deleting posts because they are intended to "hijack" threads--if that is now the rule, then we'd better get rid of about 90% of what has been posted over the last decade, even from the music threads. I don't think that, after all this time, we should change the rules on that- Which brings up another point, and that is, though the "Censorship" is a "closed" thread --additional changes continue to be made to it--Alba's request that the thread be closed, for instance, is no longer there. There is no excuse for this at all--it seems a bit like "rewriting history"-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John MacKenzie Date: 03 May 06 - 02:35 PM So you're with Roger then M Ted, that no thread should ever be closed? G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 03 May 06 - 02:41 PM " recently and publicly called me a buffoon" Even as ye sew, so shall ye reap" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: M.Ted Date: 03 May 06 - 02:59 PM That's your idea, not mine, Giok- Actually, I think that threads should generally be closed after a fixed period of inactivity has passed-if only to avoid people passionately responding to postings that were made in the last millenium--this happens so often now, that I find that I must check the dates before I respond to anything anymore-- As to closing threads for other reasons--if there are clear cut rules for what is acceptable posting and what is not, and there were clear cut and consistent responses to inappropriate posting, the question would come up a lot less than it does-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 03 May 06 - 03:47 PM It was asserted that: Any form of editing action that is imposed without the originator's prior knowledge and permission is censorship. Closing a thread does nothing to the prior posts. It affects only posters who desire to go on with the thread. As to them, they have prior knowledge (prior to their submitting their post) that the thread is closed. So that part of the quote about prior knowledge above is satisfied. After closure, no-one is an originator within that thread. The "and permission" is a separate matter. A would-be poster has no right to reopen or continue the closed thread. Indeed, as I see it, no-one here has a right to be on Mudcat at all. It is Max's forum, and it is his rules, administered largely by his designees, that make it possible for each of us to have the privilege of playing in Max's sandbox, so to speak. If Max were to "pull the plug" on the entire Mudcat site, we might all feel frustrated and saddened, but that would be his right. If he has that large right and absolute power, he surely has the lesser right and power (by his agents if he desires) to close off some lesser part of it, in this case closing a thread for what he or his agents deem good reason. I fully believe that that power is being responsibly exercised. Even if an occasional wrong decision is made (and I suppose it occasionally is), the overall system is a justifiable one, and necessary to maintain Mudcat as the useful, convenient, and pleasant place that it can and should be. If The Shambles, or Gargoyle (or indeed, Dave Oesterreich) object to that, we are perfectly free (and encouraged, I'd say) to find some site (if such there be) that gives such great freedom, companionship, pleasure, and utility without what one of us might deem "censorship". I, for one, see no reason to excercise that particular freedom of choice, because I believe that any small mistaken decisions or defects (and they ARE small) are greatly outweighed by the advantages that are given to us at Mudcat. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: akenaton Date: 03 May 06 - 04:08 PM I think if the future of Mudcat is at stake, as Dave has implied, we have no option other than to be bravehearts and sacrifice that stalwart fighter for truth and justice "The Shambles", for the greater good of Mudcat and the Queen!! "It is a far better thing you do today.......ect ...ect....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: kendall Date: 03 May 06 - 04:09 PM "The more you stir a turd, the more it smells". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: akenaton Date: 03 May 06 - 04:17 PM Any volunteers to operate "Madame"?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Grab Date: 04 May 06 - 12:15 PM the thread's originator had no such rights or no more rights than any of the rest of the contributors In other words, any other poster on that thread could have asked as well, if they'd had a similarly good reason to present to Joe. Despite the fact that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has recently and publicly called me a buffoon - to add to idiot, looney, asshole etc and that two of our known moderators have publicly stated that I should be banned from our forum? Since you've recently, publicly and repeatedly (for the last however many months) called them all incompetent and biased, and you've made it clear that you don't want to be a member of the Mudcat whilst they're delegated by Max to do the day-to-day running, frankly I don't blame them for losing their patience in the end. If your good reason is just "I posted this, therefore no-one else has the right to alter it, and Max wouldn't have done it back in 1999", then I reckon we can all predict Joe's answer. And our forum will of course be expected to believe that this will not be a personally motivated decision in any way? As I said, if you expect anyone on Mudcat to believe that you've not been given the freedom to speak your mind for the last however many months, then you're completely off your rocker. Do we know what your views are on this? Of course we do. So tell us how we'd know if you hadn't been given the freedom to keep posting the same thing, day after day for months? Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 04 May 06 - 12:30 PM "The more you stir a turd, the more it smells". True, but to remove a turd one needs a shovel and only a handfull of people around here have been issued them. If the shovel-holders don't see a turd and don't listen when someone points the turd out to them, the only thing left to do is stir the turd up in hopes that the smell will get them to start using their shovels instead of just leaning on them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 04 May 06 - 12:39 PM Shambles I would like to take this opportuinity to express my gratitude that you are here to ask these questions. I for one would never think to do so. If would be nice not to have ask such questions but as long as there are those who seem to spend most of their time in thinking up more and more restrictions and rules to impose upon the rest of our forum - someone is going to have to ask what the reasons are. Not that the answers to these question seem to be provided? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Joe Offer Date: 04 May 06 - 01:46 PM OK, Shambles, be specific. Explain these draconian Mudcat rules to us, and demonstrate why it is that they are so oppressive. The ones I recall are: no personal attacks, no spam, no racism, no non-music copy-pastes longer than one page, and be civil to other participants. The bit about "hijacking" threads was misinterpreted by an overly enthusiastic Clone, and that editing action was reversed as soon as I became aware of it. No, we're not going to allow somebody to maliciously divert a serious discussion - but that wasn't the case in the situation this week. Certainly, there are other things we edit for one reason or another - but those are just methods of operation - directing traffic, if you will. Most of the time, our editing does not remove anything but duplicated and malicious information from the Forum. I know you consider it a sacred right to post multiple multiples of just about everything you post (and much of what I post), but I think most people don't see the deletion of multiples as censorship. And, in fact, you actually haven't been affected by the Mudcat editing policy. In my memory, one message you posted got deleted - and I undeleted it within an hour. As for the accusation of name-calling, somehow I don't see the wrong in describing several aspects of a person's behavior (out-of-context quotes, endless repetition, continual repetition of questions that have already been answered, and countless character attacks and non-sequiturs) and then concluding that person is a "buffoon." It seems to be a very logical conclusion based on demonstrated behavior, not an ad hominem personal attack. If the "buffoon" title is taken out of context, it can be made to appear to be malicious name-calling and a personal attack, I suppose - but I'm not the one who posted it out of context. Same with "I'm sick of your shit." If somebody posts a thousand messages whining about what a horrible tyrant I am, am I attacking that person by saying "I'm sick of his shit"? I don't think so. If you want to present facts and discuss them in a logical, civil manner, that's another matter. That's not your game, though. You threw logic and the facts out the window long ago. So, Shambles, I'm sick of your shit - and of your buffoonery. Deal with it. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Wesley S Date: 04 May 06 - 02:03 PM "So, Shambles, I'm sick of your shit - and of your buffoonery. Deal with it." The preceding is the intellectuial property of Joe Offer. All rights reserved. Not to be reprinted or duplicated without express written permission of the author. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,heric Date: 04 May 06 - 02:06 PM Counsellor Joe asked Shambles to plainly answer the question. Shambles, by legend, responded: "Unless I am convinced by The Rules and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of clones and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of Max. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other thing." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 04 May 06 - 02:20 PM Rules & restrictions arise from bad behavior. Bad behavior comes in several forms. Obviously, applying rules evenly is never easy, as those whose behavior is in question will often not agree with the decision and will complain. And 'bystanders' who SEE the application sometimes add to the furor and demand explanations, even when they are not directly affected.......and you wonder why the rule for volunteers is sorta.."do your job as best you can and try not to debate it"!! Joe & Jeff are arbiters of decisions, and 'sometimes' reverse decisions of volunteers. I can't imagine any other way it could work. There might be occasional changes in the details of how it works, but the large majority of members seem to agree that rules & restriction are needed! and with the basic system. It is fascinating to me that 'the management' allows so much debate and complaining and 2nd guessing **OF** the rules! It seems to be similar to the way the country (USA in this case, but maybe UK and others too)....There are laws; there are enforcers; there is a certain amount of freedom to challenge the law or its application..(the courts).....but NOT total freedom to harass and cause dissention interminably. ....yeah, the metaphor has its limits, and maybe a better one would be a private club or a family *shrug*.....anyway, THIS place is privately OWNED. The public is invited in to play...IF they play by the rules (which are pretty durn liberal!). ...and to make the point about the topic, closing threads IS the prerogative of the management, whether you choose to call it 'censorship', 'editing', 'interference', or whatever! Sometimes they are re-opened by request, sometimes not. If I were in charge, ALL individual requests for thread closings OR re-openings would have to be made by PM and would be ignored if they were done in the thread....that is, I would not allow the decision to become a tedious bit of public bickering. (That is sort of a suggestion for Joe....) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 04 May 06 - 02:25 PM (gee, and while I was typing, Joe made his own point! *grin*) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Joe Offer Date: 04 May 06 - 02:56 PM OK, Shambles, here is the message I posted in the other thread. If you want to reply, reply here, in this thread, not in a new one. From now on, I will generally allow only one "Shambles complaint thread" to be open at a time. I expect you to comply. If you do not, I will take editorial action to enforce the policy - I will handle it, not the volunteers. -Joe Offer- Thread #91207 Message #1733152 Posted By: Joe Offer 04-May-06 - 02:21 PM Thread Name: BS: Censorship and Attitude Rolled into TWO Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude Rolled into TWO You know, Shambles, we were all talking about this very subject in Is Closing Threads Censorship?. In fact, I think I made some very good points in that thread. Why is it that you feel a compulsion to start yet another thread? Is it because you can't stand up to logic, that you have to move away from those who try to face up to you with reason and factual information? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: catspaw49 Date: 04 May 06 - 03:43 PM Oh my......Only ONE Shamblecentric Thread allowed at a time???? Whatever will he do? Roger's head might explode!!!! What will happen to all of his carefully catalogued and filed misquotations not to mention "The Shambles Encyclopedia of Garbled Syntax. This is surely cruel and unusual punishment!!! Spaw.......LMAO...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 04 May 06 - 03:49 PM Great. Now the clones can take their shots at Roger all in the same thread, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John MacKenzie Date: 04 May 06 - 05:01 PM It is more likely that there will now be much less posting in the BS section Bruce! G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,Martin gibson Date: 04 May 06 - 05:10 PM This is not a shambles thread and it should not count as one. I started it and I asincerely asked the question. I am requesting that thisa thread be open for all eternity. If someone would like a PM to that effect, I will send them one. The on-going discussions basically boil down to the childish, "it's my ball, so it's my rules" concept. To watch it constantly discussed and the power brokers stick out their chest is somewhat entertaining I find. To the same effect, there should be 1 whining thread about anything else at one time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Little Hawk Date: 04 May 06 - 05:29 PM Send me a PM then, Martin. It's a slow day in Orillia. ;-P |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John MacKenzie Date: 04 May 06 - 05:36 PM You need to log in to receive a PM! G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Wesley S Date: 04 May 06 - 05:46 PM Right now I think the best thing that could happen to the Mudcat is to close down the BS section for a good 6 months. Let it become a music site again. Then if it looks like people are going to behave perhaps the BS section could be brought back. This is just a personal opinion - your mileage may vary, ect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Once Famous Date: 04 May 06 - 05:47 PM OK I logged in and sent Little Hawk a PM to keep the thread open. Maybe I should send one to Jack the sailor. He says that he doesn't read my PMs and deletes them. but if you put a short message in the title of the PM, he can't help but see that. I love the feeling that comes with success. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John MacKenzie Date: 04 May 06 - 05:49 PM Novelty is always amusing Martin ☺ G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Once Famous Date: 04 May 06 - 05:49 PM describe "behave." That sounds like something a demasculating school teacher would say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Once Famous Date: 04 May 06 - 05:50 PM Latex novelties I think some would find amusing also, Giok. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 04 May 06 - 06:16 PM Why close BS for six months? It isn't what is being posted that is the problem. The problem is what is being deleted, why it's being deleted, who is doing the deleting, who is doing the reinstating because they don't agree with the deleting and five or six people all with differing definitions of hijacking and personal attack being able to do any of the above. Cease moderation for six months and see the result. And before someone posts that it would be a quagmire of nastiness, unless you have proven psychic abilities don't bother. And I mean tested in laboratory conditions with a thesis written on it and video evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 04 May 06 - 06:34 PM You almost hit on something there, GUEST @6:16PM. How about three different forums for people with different attitudes toward free speech? There would be "Turbo Mudcat" for those who think the forum should be wide open and unmoderated. Then there'd be "Regular Strength Mudcat", moderated by Joe & Clones. And there'd be "Mudcat Light" in which anyone could edit or delete anyone else's post. (Just in case someone doesn't get it, that's a joke, not a serious suggestion.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 04 May 06 - 06:53 PM No wait! It wasn't a joke! If I say it was a joke then that means I'm trying to interject humor and, as we've recently learned, at least one "clone" considers interjecting humor to be tantamount to attempting to hijack the thread which will result in the offensive post being DELETED! I was serious! Three forums for three types of folks! Now it's not a joke. It's just a really stupid idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 04 May 06 - 06:57 PM I am afraid to either agree or disagree with you, BWL, lest one of the positions be construed as showing or not showing support for your position which you seem to have wavered on and so, in closing, yes: he's right or wrong! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 04 May 06 - 07:00 PM Just don't be asking any difficult questions because they lead to thread CLOSURE! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 04 May 06 - 07:02 PM Ain't that the truth. Or not. I am agreeing with you in a non combative way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 04 May 06 - 07:08 PM I took that to be most non combative, but please don't agree lest I was wrong to say to BWL that he was either correct or not, because then you will have become someone who is attempting to side-track the thread by using the word "ain't", and that's pretty combative--or NOT, if saying it could possibly be construed as combative and make you feel that tuna in salmon sandwiches is gauche. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: M.Ted Date: 04 May 06 - 07:15 PM I am glad you're keeping this thread open, Martin--and I am glad that there are a few others as well who recognize that this is not about Shambles, and the questions we all have can not be dealt with by simply being dismissive of Shambles-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 04 May 06 - 07:28 PM It suited some people to make it into a shambles issue. Like I said in a probably closed thread, I watched as my posts supporting shambles were deleted. And I wasn't alone. But you can only play that game for so long. And the longer it went on the lazier those playing it became until it was transparent. And peace you do know that by mentioning tuna and salmon in the same thread contravenes the 92nd ammendment. One thread one fish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 04 May 06 - 07:38 PM Well, closing threads works, because that thread still has unanswered questions on it. And they ain't being asked anymore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 04 May 06 - 07:38 PM And now that fish has been mentioned in this thread it can't be mentioned in any other thread until next Tuesday. It's okay to mention crabs, shrimp, squid, or oyters on another thread, but you can't call them "shellfish" since that has the word "fish" in it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: beardedbruce Date: 04 May 06 - 07:39 PM Or what? The thread will flounder? We might tuna you out? Someone might carp on your choice of fish? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 04 May 06 - 07:43 PM Not crabs, PLEASE! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: catspaw49 Date: 04 May 06 - 07:44 PM Wet Dream......Kip Adotta It was April the forty-first Being a quadruple leap year I was driving in downtown Atlantis My barracuda was in the shop So I was in a rented stingray And it was overheating So I pulled into a Shell Station They said I'd blown a seal I said, "Fix the damn thing And leave my private life out of it Okay pal?" While they were doing that I walked over to a place called the Oyster Bar, a real dive But I knew the owner He used to play for the Dolphins I said "Hi Gil" You have to yell, he's hard of herring Think I had a wet dream Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh Wet dream Gil was also down on his luck Fact is he was barely keeping his head below water I bellied up to the sandbar He poured me the usual Rusty snail, hold the grunion Shaken not stirred With a peanut butter and jellyfish sandwich on the side Heavy on the mako I slipped him a fin On porpoise I was feeling good I even dropped a sand dollar in the box for Jerry's squids For the halibut Well the place was crowded We were packed in like sardines They were all there to listen to the big band sounds of Tommy Dorsal What sole Tommy was rockin' the place with a very popular tuna Salmon Chanted Evening And the stage was surrounded by screaming groupers Probably there to see the bass player One of them was this cute little yellowtail And she's giving me the eye So I figured this is my chance for a little fun You know, piece of Pisces But she said things I just couldn't fathom She was too deep, seemed to be under a lot of pressure Boy, could she drink She drank like a . . . She drank a lot I said "What's your sign" She said "Aquarium" I said "Great, let's get tanked" Think I had a wet dream Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh Wet dream I invited her to my place for a midnight bait I said "Come on baby, it'll only take a few minnows" She threw me that same old line "Not tonight, I gotta haddock" And she wasn't kidding either Cause in came the biggest, meanest looking haddock I'd ever seen come down the pike He was covered with mussels He came over to me and said "Listen, shrimp, don't you come trollin' around here" What a crab This guy was steamed I could see the anchor in his eyes I turned to him, I said "A-balone, you're just being shellfish" Well, I knew it was going to be trouble and so did Gil 'Cause he was already on the phone to the cods The haddock hits me with a sucker punch I catch him with a left hook He eels over It was a fluke but there he was Lying on the deck, flat as a mackerel Kelpless I said "Forget the cods Gil This guy's gonna need a sturgeon" Well, the yellowtail was impressed with the way I landed her boyfriend She came over to me, she said "Hey, big boy, you're really a game fish What's your name" I said "Marlin" Think I had a wet dream Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh Wet dream Well, from then on we had a whale of a time I took her to dinner, I took her to dance I bought her a bouquet of flounders And then I went home with her And what did I get for my trouble A case of the clams Think I had a wet dream Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh Wet dream Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh Wet dream Cruisin' thru the Gulf Stream Ooh Ooh Ooh Ooh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: bobad Date: 04 May 06 - 07:47 PM Sometimes I get the distinct impression that someone is using this forum to harvest data for a PHD thesis on the dynamics of internet behaviour. Lately there has been no shortage of material which could be analyzed and processed into academic fodder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 04 May 06 - 08:06 PM Fodder begins with F. Which is too close to fish for comfort. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: M.Ted Date: 04 May 06 - 08:30 PM I thought you couldn't have meat and fish in the same thread. You can have dairy in the fish threads, but not in the meat threads. And no shellfish threads at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Once Famous Date: 04 May 06 - 08:52 PM Thank you, MTed I do want this thread to stay open because this is a serious issue. Shambles has been dissed for doing nothing but standing up for what he believes in. The people who have a problem with him quite frankly are dickwads who obviously get uncomfortable in their own world of political correctness. These are the people who are being "protected" by such things as posts being deleted, thread closures, etc. Fuck them! I think there is a mirage here. A mirage of fairness and indifference. Boo Hoo. Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! My feelings got hurt by someone on a web site. Quick! Delete that. Pretend it wasn't there. What the fuck is the real agenda of Mudcat anyway? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 04 May 06 - 09:03 PM It's agenda presumably was somewhere for people to come and discuss music above the line and bs below it. It has morphed into some people's surrogate front room. Where people sit in their favourite chairs and nod in agreement at each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: number 6 Date: 04 May 06 - 09:04 PM Never mind fish, dairy, meat or shellfish ... Just don't talk about the weather. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Once Famous Date: 04 May 06 - 09:05 PM Could be, Guest Why not call bs what it really is. bullshit |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 04 May 06 - 09:58 PM It's the weather what done it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: bobad Date: 04 May 06 - 10:03 PM TOM WAITS - "Emotional Weather Report" late night and early morning low clouds with a chance of fog chance of showers into the afternoon with variable high cloudiness and gusty winds, gusty winds at times around the corner of Sunset and Alvorado things are tough all over when the thunder storms start increasing over the southeast and south central portions of my apartment, I get upset and a line of thunderstorms was developing in the early morning ahead of a slow moving coldfront cold blooded with tornado watches issued shortly before noon Sunday, for the areas including, the western region of my mental health and the northern portions of my ability to deal rationally with my disconcerted precarious emotional situation, it's cold out there colder than a ticket taker's smile at the Ivar Theatre, on a Saturday night flash flood watches covered the southern portion of my disposition there was no severe weather well into the afternoon, except for a lone gust of wind in the bedroom in a high pressure zone, covering the eastern portion of a small suburban community with a 103 and millibar high pressure zone and a weak pressure ridge extending from my eyes down to my cheeks cause since you left me baby and put the vice grips on my mental health well the extended outlook for an indefinite period of time until you come back to me baby is high tonight low tomorrow, and precipitation is expected |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: jaze Date: 04 May 06 - 10:04 PM Mudcat is what it is. Plain and simple. Either like or don't. If you don't, you can always start your own forum where everything can be just the way YOU want it. Why torture yourself with a forum that drives you crazy? Start your own if you don't like this one. Then, when we visit you, we would have to abide by YOUR rules. Wouldn't that make you happy? Or don't they let little pimple-faced pud fucks in cubicles at the telemarketers office start their own forums? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 04 May 06 - 10:09 PM "pimple-faced pud fucks" George Bush? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 04 May 06 - 10:13 PM "... dissed for doing nothing but standing up for what he believes in." nothing BUT?...And the KKK were 'just' gonna march thru Skokie, standing up for what they believe in...showing how proud & patriotic they were...*wry grin*..(yeah, that's an extreme example of overdoing it...but you get the point, maybe) It seems a bunch of folks want to stand up for what they believe in, too...namely, that Shambles' technique is disruptive and misleading. As you can see, Shambles still has the opportunity to say pretty much what he pleases...in one thread at a time....he just can't do the Mudcat equivilant of renting a truck with loudspeakers and driving thru many threads at once, posting, re-posting years old quotes and filling the air with tedious, repetitious rehashing. Not a perfect solution to either his goals or Joe & the clones problemsm but we'll see how it goes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 04 May 06 - 10:16 PM . . . or Stephen Harper? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 04 May 06 - 10:24 PM ?? what's a Stephen Harper? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 04 May 06 - 10:25 PM never mind...Google showed me. Guess I'm behind on the news. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: number 6 Date: 04 May 06 - 10:27 PM "what's a Stephen Harper?" ... he's Bush's boy up here in Canada. He's the current Prime Minister of Canada. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 04 May 06 - 10:31 PM Canada: So, sIx, how's the weather? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: number 6 Date: 04 May 06 - 10:36 PM I can't say Peace .... I might get deleted. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 04 May 06 - 10:57 PM Cloudy in the West, and it Looks Like Rain" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Once Famous Date: 04 May 06 - 11:30 PM wry grin, Bill D? Maybe in your own mind. I'd say more like a shit faced grin. And don't compare this to skokie, because you haven't got a clue. I went to high school in Skokie and live one town over currently. Been around that town all of my life. comparing the KKK to a guy like Shambles trying to make a point that he believes in on a web forum is ludicrous, basically stupid, and typical of your pseudo-intellectual and politically correct posturing. Limiting him to 1 post is censorship, when there are no other limits imposed on anything or anybody else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 04 May 06 - 11:50 PM Depends on whose shitlist yer on at any given time, Martin. BTW, Shambles isn't limited to one post. The sentence read something along the lines of him being limited to one thread to talk about censorship. Hell, at least then ya know where the clones will be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: M.Ted Date: 05 May 06 - 10:19 AM You won't be deleted,number 6, no one is ever deleted. Sometimes you run into an "overly enthusiastic Clone". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 05 May 06 - 11:05 AM But is this not backwards? Shouldn't YOU have to find a good reason to close a thread rather than posters having to find a reason that you then judge good enough to re-open it? Posters do not (currently) have to find a good reason to start a thread - why should they be expected to have to find a good reason for you to re-open it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 05 May 06 - 11:14 AM This thread of course is asking if the closing of threads is censorship and nothing to do with the following which about censorship and attitude. But as the discussion is not permitted to take place in the the clearly titled thread - it will have to take place in this one. Whether the attitude that seems to be currently encouraged on our forum of judging the worth of our fellow posters and trying to find way to prevent them from posting where and what they choose - is desirable, has anything to do with Max's intentions for our forum, why this has happened and how/if this attitude can be changed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 05 May 06 - 11:20 AM Mudcat is what it is. Plain and simple. Either like or don't. If you don't, you can always start your own forum where everything can be just the way YOU want it. Why torture yourself with a forum that drives you crazy? Start your own if you don't like this one. Then, when we visit you, we would have to abide by YOUR rules. Wouldn't that make you happy? Or don't they let little pimple-faced pud fucks in cubicles at the telemarketers office start their own forums? Jaze what it was and what it has become are two different animals. And stop shouting dear it's very unbecoming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John MacKenzie Date: 05 May 06 - 11:32 AM It's a bit disingenuous to say that Shambles was dissed for fighting for something he believes in Martin. Somebody changed the title of one of his threads without asking him, which caused such an outpouring of angst from Shambles, that one would have thought he had been physically castrated without anaesthetics. As I understand it, the thread title referred to the PEL legislation which was going through the House of Commons at that time. This PEL bill affected only England and Wales, and in order to clarify matters for the uninitiated, the letters UK were added to denote that the thread concerned matters in that country. Helpful thing to do I think, although it should have said England and Wales not UK, as the act does not affect Scotland! After all why would the users of a US based web site, with a world wide membership be interested in this 'little local difficulty', it seems like an odd place to choose to run his crusade. Maybe he would have been censored on most other sites which are not as liberal as the Mudcat? Now nobody is doubting Roger's sincerity or dedication in fighting this cause, the PEL bill is a catchall that unfairly impinges on the activities of people who love to make music in pubs and village halls in England and Wales, and should be rescinded immediately. His swamping of the threads with quotes, was over reaction in spades, his personal vendetta against the clones in general and Joe Offer in particular has strayed a long way from an anti PEL campaign. His extrapolation of an editing action into a full blown anti moderation campaign defies logic. It is in short his methods and not his motives that are the cause of concern to many people on here. It is a bit like shooting doctors outside abortion clinics, because you disagree with the practice, or digging up the remains of someones Mother as a means of blackmailing that person into stopping breeding guinea pigs for medical research. While on the surface of it Shambles being 'dissed' for holding the views he does is unjust, and his careful selection of his quotes might make it seem like that, this is merely the part he wants you to see to gain sympathy, it is not for the reasons he states that he has been asked/told to cease his carpet bombing of the threads. There have been mistakes made along the way, and this has added to the confusion, Joe Offer entered into public discussion/comment with Shambles, which he should never have done. Known clones have said they'd be happy to see him gone, which they shouldn't have done. All clones should be anonymous, with the possible exception of Joe Offer as a conduit for liaising with Catters in private. And no critical comments should be added to posts by clones EVER! Informative additions only allowed! However we are where we are, and there is no going back, so perhaps we should all keep schtum for a bit while people cool down. Sorry if this is a bit long and perhaps not the polished polemic I would aspire to, but I hope that it clarifies some of my thoughts. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 05 May 06 - 11:41 AM Giok yes, it does clarify. And the facts you have presented are all true it seems. I don't think the part you described about Shambles though is as important as the points you made about how he was treated by the admistrative people of this forum. I guess that's what bothers me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 05 May 06 - 11:55 AM That "If you don't like the Mudcat the way it is, leave!" mentality continues to boggle my mind. I DO like most of it just the way it is. Does that mean I should keep my mouth shut about what I don't like? Here's what I don't like: 1) That one particular moderator seems to let his personal opinions of other members get in the way of doing his job in an impartial manner. He has a history of deleting posts and closing threads based upon who said something, not what was said. Maybe he needs to attend a few 12-step program meetings and learn about putting principles before personalities. 2) That the chief moderator allows himself, in times of stress, to lapse into the personal attack mode that is one of the handful of things forbidden around here. If anybody else were to slam a member the way J.O. does when he gets hot under the collar, that post would be deleted. If somebody needs his ass chewed, it needs to be done in private, not in the open forum. Other than that, I'm pretty much happy as a clam around here... except when someone tells me that expressing my concerns about what I don't like is, somehow, improper. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John MacKenzie Date: 05 May 06 - 12:02 PM From what I hear, there had been lots of calls for Shambles to be excluded long before this present impasse, and Joe Offer refused to remove him many times. So you can imagine how frustrating it must be to stand up for someone against all comers, and still see that person go out of his way to aggravate the situation. Eventually if you're human you lose the plot, which Joe did, so then all the others who had been complaining for ages piled in and re-said their piece. Once Joe had slipped the avalanche ensued. That's why it seemed like gang warfare I think, it was people telling Joe "I told you so". Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Non posting of judgements week. From: The Shambles Date: 05 May 06 - 12:25 PM As no one can determine when the week ends it will continue for all eternity. Or until this thread is closed too............ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 05 May 06 - 12:30 PM BWL, amen to what you say. I completely agree. Moderators cannot be open members. Just like umpires or referees can't play on one of the teams. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,Martin gibson Date: 05 May 06 - 12:37 PM In addition, calling for anyone's removal because you either hate them, hate what they say, the way they act, short of them being complete evil, is really just a lot of whining and is also censorship in my book. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 05 May 06 - 12:56 PM When someone is saying what you don't want them to say but you recognise that they have as much right to say what they wish as you do - you still have a number of options to use to try and prevent them. Some of these options can be painted to look as though they are perfectly valid and some are less easy to disguise - but make no mistake - the whole range of these options (or red herrings) have certainly been displayed for all to see on our forum..... But whatever is said and no matter how you may feel about it - there is never any excuse ever respond with abusive personal attacks and name-calling. For any 'moderator' to even once indulge in such things is inexcusable and demonstrates they are unfit for the responsibilites of such a role. And anyone who repeatedly did this to Max's fellow invited guests - should recognise that in repeatedly showing such examples they have become the single largest factor in encouraging such 'conflict' on our forum and for them to even wish to continue to impose judgement under such circumstances. where any remaining credibilty is gone - is a very sad joke. Especially when publicly admitting the failure of all these petty restrictions to impose the 'peace' they require without impose yet more restrictions. Can they and those who support these imposed restrictions and are obviously unhappy with Max's wishes - please start a site of their own? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 05 May 06 - 02:05 PM Martin...I don't have to know Skokie to know the KKK's plan was NOT a good plan or even a good way to make their point!...YOU know very well my example of Skokie was only an extreme example of how a person or group can couch what they want in language that makes it all seem SO exemplary, while ignoring the discomfort and nuisance value to others. Giok's explanation of the PELS protest is another example...this time of Roger's good intentions executed badly- flooding everyone he could with 'news' and abusing the system....but at least most everyone was in favor of the spirit. Now we have interminable threads ABOUT his dissatisfaction with how Mudcat is administered. He pesters on point 'A' until he provokes someone to respond with words beyond polite reason, then makes that response point 'B'...and connects A & B with linguistic twists until he gets 'edited' by thread closings...which becomes point 'C'....and so ad infinitum. After 5-6 years of this, he has a labyrinth of interlocking posts and points which he uses to 'prove' each other....most of which would not exist if he hadn't nagged, provoked and complained unreasonably in the first place! I have known personally a couple of people who over-used some sense of "righteous indignation" and went off tilting at windmills like Shambles is doing - and like him, it was VERY difficult to get across to them why it was not being very successful....now it has gotten HIM even more limitations in his quest! I have no illusions that anything we say will help...but maybe having it 'confined' to a smaller area will help the flow of other things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 05 May 06 - 05:15 PM "RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?" Depends on who ya ask. It ain't who ya know, it's who ya blow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 05 May 06 - 05:20 PM But as some of us see it bill, Shambles isn't tilting at windmills. He is putting his point across without abuse. As that point is proven steadily by the inconsistent moderation on here, those guilty of this inconsistency get increasingly frustrated and it is they who tilt like windmills. They have tried most tricks in the book to silence him. Why? Because he is right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: jeffp Date: 05 May 06 - 06:04 PM If they truly wanted to silence him, he would be gone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 05 May 06 - 06:13 PM Tell that to Gargoyle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 05 May 06 - 06:14 PM ``People need to trust each other and their government. The idea that people in government are lying is fundamentally destructive of that trust.'' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,Martin gibson Date: 05 May 06 - 06:17 PM bill D. Point D You should get a life and not worry so much about what others post here. Or in other words, don't like it? Ignore it. trouble is, you can't. Perhaps you need help to deal with what Shambles posts here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: jeffp Date: 05 May 06 - 06:22 PM Garg was banned for a while. He was allowed to return by Max after they talked on the phone. He is tolerated for some reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 05 May 06 - 06:32 PM Why on earth should anyone consider banning shambles? He hasn't lied or decieved anyone. IF the truth isn't palatable then skip his posts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: catspaw49 Date: 05 May 06 - 06:35 PM LOL.....Yeah jeff, but Garg is kinda' like the "House Troll." He's mellowed some over the years and he certainly had his moments, but he has always been a good source of info on certain musical topics and contrary to other trolls, he has a sense of humor that he shows at times. During one of my near death experiences in the past eight years, he sent me a card at the hospital. It had a typical Garg message on it but also just a bit of seriousness as well. The best thing was that he sent me a "Congrats On Having Your Baby" card!!! He has also communicated privately a few times with some pretty good stuff. Hey....He may be an ass.....but he's our ass!!! When he was "on his game" no one around here now could hold a candle to him.....and quite a few have wanted to!!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 05 May 06 - 07:55 PM You seem to be trying to make Mudcat into a forum that centers around Shambles, and I don't think it's fair to the rest of us to allow that to continue. Joe Offer Does anyone really believe this is the one and only reason for the latest attempt to inhibit and prevent open discussion on this subject..........? For it would be a truly terrible thing and of course this would be the most unfair aspect of our forum for it would appear that it must now center only around the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. The only thing I have done is to try and post my views. That is the whole purpose of our forum. For this I have been subjected to threats and probably more abusive personal attacks and called more names that perhaps any other poster on our forum. I have never responded in kind to any of these nor to what is quite clearly personally motivated and selective censorship actions. Whether these views are all posted in one thread or subject to yet more imposed restrictions, will not change the situation. However, it will only bring more attention to how far our forum has been changed from Max's intentions for it. These latest threats will not prevent honest attempts to enable open discussion to take place on our forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 05 May 06 - 08:06 PM Do you need to be censored The above thread has also been closed - despite containing the following editing comment. This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 05 May 06 - 08:18 PM "These latest threats will not prevent honest attempts to enable open discussion to take place on our forum." Open discussion takes trust of and from BOTH side. That just don't exist, and hasn't for a while. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 05 May 06 - 09:50 PM Remember what I said earlier about "principles, not personalities"? Well, a post by Martin Gibson has been deleted from the "people who post" thread. Granted, it was mildly insultive, but not in an overtly nasty manner. If almost anyone else around here had said the very same thing, the post would still be there. The reason for its deletion has everything to do with who said it and nothing to do with what was said. Sorry, folks, but that doesn't add up to impartial moderation in my book. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: jaze Date: 05 May 06 - 10:13 PM Well I'm wondering, do you really think this should "anything goes"? Anyone should be able to say any damn thing they please and everyone should just accept it? Is that really what you think this should be? Don't you think that would result in chaos? Let's look at a larger picture. The Palestinians and other Muslims don't think Israel should exist. Should THEY be allowed to wipe it away because that's what THEY want? Your're basically proposing the same thing only on a smaller scale. Maybe the REST of the world doesn't want Israel wiped out. Maybe the REST of the people here don't want Mudcat wiped out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 05 May 06 - 10:18 PM If it's not going to be an "anything goes", then make it that way for everyone here. Clones, Guests and members. Some folks can say what the fuck they want about who the fuck they want and it stays on the threads. What BWL just poined out is true. Doesn't depend on what's said so much as 1) who said it 2) who it was said against |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Ebbie Date: 05 May 06 - 10:40 PM "Can they and those who support these imposed restrictions and are obviously unhappy with Max's wishes - please start a site of their own? " The Shambles Think about it: If the people that Max put into place and those who support him/them were to go away to start another website, just where do you think Max would be? Whatever makes you think that he would continue the Mudcat? Man. If there is a conspiracy to get Max so thoroughly pissed off that he folded his tent and went away, it just might work. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: jaze Date: 05 May 06 - 10:44 PM Think about it. Is that what you really want? The option of starting your own forum where anythong goes is still there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 05 May 06 - 10:45 PM That still won't address the issue BWL mentioned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 05 May 06 - 11:26 PM BWL said "... If almost anyone else around here had said the very same thing, the post would still be there." Maybe...and maybe not. You can't win an argument on hypotheticals. Nobody else says quite the same things as Martin G...or in quite the same way on in quite the same context, so presupposing what 'might' happen if they did is stretching a bit. Martin has gone out of his way to make being offensive & insulting a major part of his persona, so I have no doubt that his posts get scrutinized more closely than some. This ain't a democracy. I have seen management decisions that *I* disagree with, but I know....personally...most of the management, including at least 6-7 who can edit, and I know they are ALL trying to make it work as best they can. Yes, they all have real personalities and opinions and are human and they will sometimes make decisions differently than I might make....but it is an ATTEMPT to make this place work like John Stuart Mill suggested..."the greatest good for the greatest number". That being said, SOME decisions will not please everyone....so be it. I can't imagine a forum with this amount of freedom being any other way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 05 May 06 - 11:43 PM "BS: Is closing threads censorship?" Sometimes. And on occasion the thread left open are worse than the ones that get closed. Depends whose agenda ya follow and whose shitlist yer on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,MN Monster Date: 06 May 06 - 12:10 AM Hey folks, I've had this IP access blocked for a couple of weeks, but just discovered that this pipeline has been reopened for me. So to Joe and the Clones, I would just like to say, in my best and brightest Sally Fields voice, "You like me! You really, really like me!" Apparently, other people besides myself and Shambles have now noticed the dirty little secrets of Mudcat "moderation" (spit). Looks like you have an insurrection on yer hands, there "Moderators". I figured out early on how this forum's moderation worked. It started out with essentially one rule: no personal attacks. Now, it had descended into this black hole, just as I predicted it would several years ago. Now, the essential one rule is: no criticizing the moderators, for only they are allowed to make personal attacks against people. Especially guests, but also, the many members they don't like. Shall we start a list of who the people are who post here that EVERYONE knows the moderators don't like? Besides me and Shambles. We're the two easiest. BTW, before the clones got pissed off at me a couple weeks ago and blocked my IP, they had been on a merry stalking adventure, deleting my posts critical of them in a couple of threads. Now, that makes the process transparent, doesn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 06 May 06 - 12:28 AM Henry Steele Commager: Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 06 May 06 - 02:36 AM Think about it. Is that what you really want? The option of starting your own forum where anythong goes is still there. You seem to miss the whole point. Our forum is based on that principle - if you read through all of Max's public statements this will be made very clear. It is why I became a contributor in the first place and why I have stayed one for so long. A forum where there were constant restrictions on what could be said where and by who and where posters were encouraged to worry about things being off-topic and pick holes in others spelling and grammar - dind't hold any attraction for me then and it does not know. It is those who have never accepted the realities of the equal terms that Max invited us all to contribute and who have never ceased to complain about their fellow guests and who need to shape our forum to their tastes, who now need to take the option of forming a forum on their terms. For Max does not seem to have agreed to the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's latest required imposition to futher restrict the posting of others whilst strongly objecting to any form of restrition also being applied to him. Or has Max now accepted that proposal? Perhaps our forum could be informed one way or the other? This ain't a democracy. Ain't that the truth. So why this attempt to 'pander' to what the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team judges to be what most folk think? Why can't folk be left to decide and 'vote with their feet'. The claim is preposterous anyway in the case of this subject and PELs. The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does not appear to like these threads BECAUSE folk vote do with their feet and BECAUSE these threads are easily THE most popular threads. And wouldn't they be? These aspects are the ONLY thing that all posters have in common and a vested interest in. Why shouldn't they be able to start threads on this subject as they can on any other subject or be inhibited in any way by the personal tastes of their so-called moderators? And wouldn't most folk think that even one abusive personal attack (especially when this example is set by a moderator) is a lot worse that seeing more than one thread title on similar subject or reading the same reasonably worded post in more than one thread? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 06 May 06 - 02:58 AM It is in short his methods and not his motives that are the cause of concern to many people on here. Neither a fellow posters methods or (assumed) motives are anyone else's business on our forum. Encouragment should not be given for posters to publicly speculate on or to judge the worth of their fellow poster in any way nor to ask or expect posters to take sides. Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause. Mohandas Gandhi |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John MacKenzie Date: 06 May 06 - 03:04 AM No Guest MN Monster that does not make it more transparent. Maybe that's because we don't know who the heck you are. You quote nothing to back up your accusations, so all we are left with is an unsubstantiated rant. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 06 May 06 - 05:13 AM Suggestion for rules of Engagement Has also been closed (perhaps at that originator's request) so perhaps any suggestions made to the following request will have to be made in this thread – if anyone is brave enough to make any. Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS? From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 22 Feb 06 - 03:59 AM Well, I actually get more flak about what what we don't delete, than about what we do delete. Generally we follow the same guidelines we've always followed - we delete personal attacks, threats, racism, and Spam - but we do our best to allow people to express their thoughts and opinions freely. I suppose some of those opinions are objectionable, but if they're not outright hateful, we usually don't delete them - much to the chagrin of some Mudcatters. For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones. And despite our best efforts, Mudcat is no longer a pleasant place to hang out and goof off or have a good discussion. So, I think something has to be done. Ebbie's suggestion about putting Secret Santa in the music section is a very simple answer to one major objection I had to members-only BS posting - duh, why didn't I think of that? So, short of members-only posting, what can we do to bring peace to this place? I'd rather have another solution, but I haven't been able to think of one. -Joe Offer- My suggestion (in brief) is that those who cannot accept Max's invitation for the public to freely contribute to our forum and think that setting the example of posting abusive personal attacks on their fellow invited guests is acceptable, justified and excusable but who now admit the failure of such an example to impose the peace they require and can only suggest more restrictions - start their own forum and finally leave ours in peace. What would you suggest to prevent examples like the following disaster (and worse)? And to how our forum can return to one where posting is encouraged rather than inhibited? You can send them to me in a PM, and I will post them here, if you are not brave enough to do so publicly and be known. Censorship and attitude rolled into one |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John MacKenzie Date: 06 May 06 - 05:49 AM Sedition |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 06 May 06 - 07:28 AM giok I don't need to provide you with proof that my posts supporting shambles were deleted. Because I know they were. It doesn't matter one iota to me if you choose to walk around with your eyes closed. I also saw another guests posts deleted in a similar vein. If you don't agree with max's choice to have guests on here then maybe you are on the wrong forum. You have sat and watched and lapped up a falsely presented one sided attack on everything shambles posts and joined in at every opportunity. Some of us have a problem with being lied to, decieved to and manipulated. That was never max's intention when he set this site up. Those (some) responsible for the editing are to blame for the mess this has become. If they genuinely cared about the site they would admit to themselves that they are not up to the job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John MacKenzie Date: 06 May 06 - 08:00 AM I have attacked Roger for his methods, never for his beliefs. I do not 'join in' because others do it, as you accuse. It is always the refuge of the minority point of view holder, to accuse the majority of being a clique. My eyes are not closed, and I have posted more than once when I have disagreed with editing decisions, and I myself have been edited. It is again a facet of a minority to take note of and quote those posts which fit in with their prejudices, while ignoring those which don't. So I'm afraid that as you cannot back up any of your accusations against either myself or the clones, you are once again crying in the wilderness. Giok. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 06 May 06 - 08:55 AM You are not in the majority. You are in a mean spirited group of about 6 who can't contain themselves jumping up and down to berate shambles. The majority thankfully don't engage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John MacKenzie Date: 06 May 06 - 09:19 AM I think you may be confusing sympathy with charity matey! G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Big Mick Date: 06 May 06 - 09:49 AM or boredom. Or apathy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 06 May 06 - 09:55 AM I have attacked Roger for his methods, never for his beliefs. I do not 'join in' because others do it, as you accuse. Personally attacking any fellow poster, calling them names and taking sides over what and how they chose to post - rather than simply being encouraged to ignore anything not to your taste - is what you and other posters are encouraged to do by the example currently set by our 'moderators'. It and the double standard under which the attempt is made to justfy and excuse this example - is the single most divisive factor on our forum and nothing whatever to do with any principle on which Max invited us all to contribute to it as equals. When I started posting - Max did not pin a sign above the door which stated that I had to post only views that my fellow poster Joe Offer agreed with, or else I would be subjected to threats, judgement and repeated abusive personal attacks from him. If there had - I would not have posted on such terms. Max has not pinned up a sign on the door which states that I have to post only views that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team agrees with, or else I would be subjected to threats, judgements and repeated abusive personal attacks from the current holder of that role. That any 'moderator' who indulges in this open conflict and sets such examples for other posters to follow, can really require 'peace' must be in doubt - that any 'moderator' could seriously expect to achieve any form of 'peace' on our forum by such divisive conduct and hypocrisy would tend lead you to look for some other explanation. But after constant imposed changes - the 'bouncers' publicy admit their failure to impose 'peace' and propose the only way they can ensure the 'peace' they require is to exclude the public from freely contributing altogether after all these years - it is time to suggest that these 'bouncers' and those who support them - move on to somewhere which better suits them and leave the rest of us to post - if not in peace - at least free from their imposed judgement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 06 May 06 - 10:38 AM Just because you disagree with the PEL legislation doesn't mean you have to pass comments or judgements on it. Why can't you just ignore it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Once Famous Date: 06 May 06 - 10:51 AM I want to clarify that Guent MN is not me. But he speaks volumes here. The post Bee-dub-ya referred to as being deleted was just another truthful statement I made that got to the heart of the matter in my down-to-earth bluntful way of putting it. Being bluntfully honest in an opinion and sticking to it can be daqngerous here. It is interesting to see that the knowledge of censorship, playing favorites, biasness, hypocracy has been picking up steam here. No, it is not about Shambles. Rewarding to see this? Yes, to a degree. So, I ask again, what is the agenda of the BS section of Mudcat? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 06 May 06 - 10:58 AM 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: Is closing threads censorship? From: catspaw49 Date: 06 May 06 - 01:48 PM And around we come back to that old favorite............ LMAO.......Damn Rog.....When it gets too complicated and weird I can always guarantee you'll drag out that old chestnut! And you can do better on the Spaw thread BTW.......LOL....How about Shambles Will Always Prevail? More creativity Man.....I know you can do it and you don't have anything else to do do you? I mean you have all the quotes categorized and at your fingertips to be misused in any number of ways on this thread..... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: catspaw49 Date: 06 May 06 - 01:56 PM OOOPS!!! Forgot myself.....need a quote don't I? Okay........... Subject: A warm goodbye, from The Shambles. From: The Shambles - PM Date: 22 Jul 99 - 08:17 AM {SNIP}....I also thought that is more polite to say goodbye and thank you for sharing with me a lot of thought, information and honest good fun. Also to provoke a little thought. For I and I suspect others who have left, also do so with a heavy heart. This place was special to me because I thought it was big enough and welcoming enough for ALL. I intend to look in from time to time and will hopefully, return if or when I feel that welcome is again there for all. LOVE AND PEACE: Roger Gall. Well, you returned didn't you? You must feel welcome!!! Or have you possibly changed your mind since then? You're allowed to do that you know..................so am I...........so is Max............. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 06 May 06 - 02:21 PM Sympathy? Charity? Boredom? Apathy? No none of them mick. Just a lot of people who have seen right through the charade. But keep on keeping on. You're making it easy for us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 06 May 06 - 08:04 PM [PM] Max The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? (81* d) RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? 12 Jan 00 Thank you Shambles. I think some may not catch what your trying to do. The Mudcat's gonna grow. There will be a lot more content, a lot more people, a lot more posts, a lot more media, a lot more songs. We can't stop that now. But does this change anything? Some of us may get nervous that our happy world here may change, but what ever stays the same? The Real World is what it is, as is the Mudcat, and both are changing and growing everyday. Fear not the future, fear not the growth, fear not the change. It all comes down to one simple thing: It will be what we make it... PERIOD |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 06 May 06 - 08:10 PM User Name Thread Name Subject Posted [PM] Max Objectionable Material (50) RE: Objectionable Material 16 Apr 98 >snip< Please critisize and disagree and bitch and moan all you want, I dig that. Just have respect for our brothers and sisters that come here too. They are like you... at least in one way... they are Mudcateers. Max |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 06 May 06 - 08:15 PM [PM] Max The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? (81* d) RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? 12 Jan 00 >Snip< Censorship will not happen. I do admit to deleting something here or there, but the ONLY two ways that will happen is if personal or delicate information is mistakenly posted and either I see it or the SUBJECT or POSTER requests that I remove it. The second way is if I feel like it (This is half a joke, the temptation as "The Man" to remove downright garbage is just too tempting sometimes, and I do reserve the ability for EXTREME situations, ex. Telling one to go ahead and do it in a suicide thread.) Max |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,MN Monster Date: 06 May 06 - 09:41 PM Yah sure, so I check back in on dat udder pipeline, and I see dat dey has blocked mine access again, but not deleted da post I made up dere so's ya wudn't tink dey was censoring me now. Uff da! Such a chicken shit Mick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Big Mick Date: 06 May 06 - 10:58 PM Sorry dearie, but I don't have the ability to block ISP's. Nor do I want it. Only Joe, Jeff, and Max do that. Hate to disappoint you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,MN Monster Date: 06 May 06 - 11:16 PM Oooh, Mick me darlin' now what makes youse tink I was talkin' about ISPs when I called you a chicken shit? Gutless coward is another term that comes to mind. It is your thin skin, and inability to refrain from making a comment when Joe and you clones are the subject of a discussion where you aren't being sucked up to by the Mudcat sycophants, to which I was referring. Not everyone is a member in good standing of the Suck Up to the Joe and the Clones Fan Club. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,Wesley S Date: 06 May 06 - 11:45 PM I still think that Max should consider closing down the BS section of the Mudcat for at least six months - or permanently. It's been proven time and time again that there are plenty of Mudcaters that just aren't mature enough to handle it. And the ones who would object the loudest are the ones that abuse it the most. The BS section has become the traffic wreck that slows down traffic on the freeway to a crawl. Of course that is only my personal opinion. What's the worst that would happen ? We'd practice our instruments more ? Learn some new songs ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 07 May 06 - 12:13 AM Or you could just stop reading the BS section and posting in it, if it offends you so much. But no, the Mudcat way is to demand we be censored, for our own good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 07 May 06 - 03:21 AM OK, Shambles, be specific. Explain these draconian Mudcat rules to us, and demonstrate why it is that they are so oppressive. The ones I recall are: no personal attacks, no spam, no racism, no non-music copy-pastes longer than one page, and be civil to other participants. Joe Offer I can recall a lot more of your petty restrictions that that and you are rather missing the restriction you really want to impose on our forum and will not seemingly rest until you have your way on this also. Is calling a fellow poster a buffoon, idiot, an asshole or a looney on different occasions - being civil to other participants? Or do these rules not apply to the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, some of his moderators and supporters (or the usual suspects)? Any rules that are unclear and are only selectively enforced, offer posters no protection from personally motivated censorship actions and offer no protection to those imposing their judgement, from any subsequent claim that those actions were personally motivated. How can our forum expect to be protected from abusive personal attacks when (some) of our moderators and the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, set the example that this is acceptable and excusable? Perhaps you would accept that such posts are NEVER acceptable and excusable and apologise to me and our forum - rather than attempting to justify ever indulging in such conduct or responding in kind to it? If you repeatedly indulge in setting the example of publicly posting abusive personal attacks to call posters like me names and some other known moderators do this and and least two of them call for me to be banned - can you really expect our forum to judge that any censorship of my postings - is NOT personally motivated? And where there is any question of imposed censorship being personally motivated - it will - with some justification be judged by our forum as oppressive and unfair. But mostly ineffective and counter-productive and any attempt to maintian and justify it - will continue to be seen to be a very poor joke at our forum's expense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 07 May 06 - 01:27 PM Censorship and attitude rolled into one The above thread was closed. Among other things (which it would appear that our protectors would rather we did not see) in this thread were the following links. All these threads were started at different times, by different posters, are on different subjects and all have received many posts - but all the first thread linked to, have now been closed. Music posts by Guests to be reviewed Proposal for members only posting of BS I may disagree with what you say- Your favourite Shamblism Why all the closed threads? Non posting of judgements week Do we need to curb the troublemakers Do you need to be censored Censorship and Attitude rolled into TWO The only thing that is clear from all the posts in these threads is that there are two extreme views and that posters are quite clearly being asked by some of our moderators to support one and not the other. That is the conflict in which every poster is now encouraged to take sides in - every time action is taken and justification is publicly given and support for it sought. A post expressing support for the status quo - will usually be met by one from a moderator saying thank you or well said etc. A post seen not to be expressing support for the status quo - will be met with a different response and described (by our current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team) and treated as a complaint post or an anti-Mudcat post. Now there must be some question if (some of) our moderators have any real intention of obtaining any form of peace - but see it not only in terms being seen to take part in the conflict - but to be seen to be on the winning side in this conflict. Any moderator who is seen to indulge in any form of conflict or to openly support any side of it on our forum - is part of the problem and no part of any solution that involves an end to such conflict and division. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,Wesley S Date: 07 May 06 - 02:33 PM Guest of 07 May 06 - 12:13 AM. You don't have to like my idea - but arent we all supposed to be able to offer our opinions here ? Or just the opinion that you agree with ? You're proving my point for me. Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 07 May 06 - 03:38 PM wesley closing down a part of the site seems ludicrous. It has been already painfully highlighted that the recent problems have been down to the over zealous use of the edit button, the then reinstatement of the deleted posts, the censorship of some peoples posts and certain moderators accusing posters of all and sundry (until the accused find the offending posts) and then the certain moderator in the face of indisputable fact going very quiet. None of this would be solved by closing down the BS. Changing/removing the certain mods would solve it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 07 May 06 - 03:57 PM It may become a moot point. As the auction items increase in number, access to threads falls further and further down the page. It may not be possible to access threads soon, anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,Wesley S Date: 07 May 06 - 04:01 PM Perhaps our moderators with have nothing to do if people behaved differently here? Who knows? Thanks for expressing your opinion. I just happen to disagree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 07 May 06 - 04:23 PM Wesley S - Any further restrictions on the BS - even temporary ones - will have a resulting and negative effect on the music section. Unless you were going to suggest closing that down too? But why must almost every suggestion be a further restriction on what others can post? All these currently imposed restrictions are reactive. I live in hope that it will finally be understood that no one can control what is posted by others and no one should try. All that can be done by these constant (and usually well-intended) attempts - is to futher inhibit posting. What is posted by others on our frum cannot be controlled but it can be influenced, by setting a consistent example. And posting must first be encouraged by any system of moderation - rather than just clumsy inhibition. The posting of many types of thread are currently inhibited for no good reason - birthday threads and copycat threads for example. And no poster really knows if starting a new thread or refreshing an existing one (if you can find one that has not been closed) is the right or wrong thing to do - as both can be judged to be wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Once Famous Date: 07 May 06 - 05:09 PM Asking people to behave "like adults" "mature" etc., is about as nauseating and as snobby and boring as can be. The ones asking for this need to relax their sphincter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Ebbie Date: 07 May 06 - 05:18 PM Ye gods. I never realized how boring and indeed, insulting, it is to call someone mature and adult. (Except for the porn shops and "adult" films. A good case could be made that rather than using 'mature' and 'adult' designations one coulr more easily banner 'Juvenile" or even "Cases of Arrested Development".) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 07 May 06 - 05:33 PM And that leads to another thing: Why do arrested developments come in cases instead of bottles or boxes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 07 May 06 - 05:39 PM And, Shambles still has a point, lest it be lost in the asides. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John O'L Date: 07 May 06 - 07:20 PM I'll have a gross of Arrested Developments please, and a bottle of Who-The-Fuck-Are-You-Lookin'-At? to go. Ta. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,Wesley S Date: 07 May 06 - 07:50 PM Actually Shambles - I think the music section would thrive if the BS went away. Lots of good folks have left the Mudcat because of what goes on down here. And I think they would return if the word got out. But we'll most likly never know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 07 May 06 - 09:52 PM What goes on down here can be humorous, informative, thought provoking and witty. It can also be argumentative, petty and underhand. That's life. If people are driven away because of that they probably could do with being in the real world a bit more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Once Famous Date: 07 May 06 - 10:15 PM Amen to that, Guest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Azizi Date: 07 May 06 - 11:02 PM Guest 07 May 06 - 09:52 PM 's comment that [some of] "What goes on down here [in the BS threads]can be humorous, informative, thought provoking and witty" struck a chord for me. I've been trying to put into words the difference between the above the line and the below the line threads. It occurs to me that while I like the informative and/or thought provoking nature of the above the line posts, they don't seem to me to be as humorous and witty as the BS threads. Interesting information and thought provoking ideas are important, but sometimes wit and humor are just what the doctor ordered. To borrow more of Guest 07 May 06 - 09:52 PM 's words, the BS threads can also be "argumentative, petty and underhand. That's life." I would also say that-to a lesser degree-pettiness and underhandedness and argumentativeness also can be found in the above the line Mudcat threads. Human nature being what it is, there will never be a online forum or a real world forum that is completely free of negativity. But I'm not sure that is point. What I expected and have been from Mudcat was even handed moderation by those appointed to do so. I want a forum with no favoritism and no people treated unfairly because of who they are or who does or does not get along with them, or what they previously posted. I don't believe that Mudcat is there yet. But I believe that this is an achievable goal for this online community. At least I sincerely hope that it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Azizi Date: 07 May 06 - 11:06 PM Let me try that again: What I expected and what sometimes appears to me to be missing from Mudcat is even handed moderation by those appointed to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 08 May 06 - 02:05 AM Actually Shambles - I think the music section would thrive if the BS went away. Lots of good folks have left the Mudcat because of what goes on down here. And I think they would return if the word got out. But we'll most likly never know. The BS section acts as a safety valve. You have see this in terms of its history. All threads were originally in one place and their content could only be judged by the title. In response to some complaints - the BS prefix was introduced. In response to some complaints - the BS section was introduced. In response to some complaints - should the BS section now be closed, the public excuded etc? The lesson is that there will always be complaints. Every change made in response to these complaints will bring more complaints and unforseen results that will cause the original complainants to complain again. Perhaps those who cannot accept our forum without complaining about and needing to change the terms of Max's open invitation - can just go away? The attitude now seems to be that as not all of us are going to be happy - the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team may as well do just as he pleases. There can be much obvious unfairness shown by (some of) our moderators as long as no one is unfair to them and expects them to set a good example and to follow the same rules as they impose on everyone else. And the current and paramount concern of (some of) our moderators is to ensure by the use of abusive personal attacks, threats and censorship - that no post appears in more than one thread and there is never to be more than one thread on the same or similar subjects - and all this public fuss is justified because this is judged to be unfair.....It does not seem to be considered unfair for (some of) our moderators to publicly call for fellow named members to be banned - for non-specified reasons. Presumably for not being in complete agreement with them? Pehaps these good folks are just driven off by all these imposed and petty restrictions and the resulting and rather natural and predictable reaction against them? And now by the fact that (some of) these moderators seem detemined to continue to impose more unfairness and restrictions and indulge in the resulting conflict - even after admitting the complete failure of these measures to impose their required 'peace'. I question if peace can really be their main concern? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 08 May 06 - 03:00 AM [PM] Joe Offer BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 31 Mar 05 Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos. So, Max appointed some of us to try to keep down the worst of the nastiness. We don't do enough to satisfy some people (Clinton Hammond, for example), and we do too much to satisfy Shambles. So, we continue to stumble along what we see as the middle path, knowing that we will never satisfy everybody. Such is life. -Joe Offer- ---------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 11 Aug 05 - 03:28 PM I also find it an interesting challeng to respond to insults without resorting to insults. Although I guess I have to admit that I have sometimes given in to that temptation, I think I generally do a pretty good job of expressing myself rationally and with good humor.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 12 Aug 05 - 03:30 PM You see, Roger, most of us are here to have a good time among friends. All of your adversarial crap is just that - adversarial crap. We volunteers do what we need to do to keep the peace and tidy things up. Nobody's out to offend your right to free speech - but if you insist on making an asshole of yourself, you're likely to be treated like an asshole. Basically, Mudcat is here for enjoyment - not for all this heavy stuff you try to lay on us. You want to play war games, and that's not what we're here for. No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems. If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something? -Joe Offer- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM >snip< Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case. -Joe Offer- On this evidence - is our forum really expected to accept that any action taken against any of my postings is NOT personally motivated? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Once Famous Date: 08 May 06 - 08:02 AM Personal motivation by the moderators is abused to many it seems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,MN Monster Date: 08 May 06 - 08:52 AM "I want a forum with no favoritism and no people treated unfairly because of who they are or who does or does not get along with them, or what they previously posted." Bingo! It only takes one clone or Joe to dislike you because you hold a point of view different from theirs, and you are done in this forum. For me, it was Big Mick hating me because I refused to tow his militaristic, patriot line on Memorial Day celebrations. I've been his "MN Monster" ever since. But the clones don't just delete my posts anymore. They now block my IP, denying me access on any old whim, but especially if I say something critical about moderation here. As you can see, they haven't been terribly successful at keeping me out of the forum with their juvenile blocking IP strategy. It is ridiculously simple to get around their efforts to keep you out of the forum. But I'm quite sure they will delete this post, just because I've "breached their security". Yawn. Any 14 yr old can figure out how to breach Mudcat "security". What we need is to get rid of the cause of Mudcat insecurity: it's censor-happy moderators. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John MacKenzie Date: 08 May 06 - 09:00 AM My how precocious, you could do something intelligent when/if you grow up! G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,MN Monster Date: 08 May 06 - 09:05 AM And how mature of you to respond with one of your pathetically predictable tit for tat posts, Giok. Of course, none of us is surprised at you being your usual self. Everyone knows you are as mature about forum moderation discussions as the thin skinned moderators of the forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Grab Date: 08 May 06 - 09:17 AM The converse also applies, Shambles. Are we expected to believe now that all your posts/threads are *not* personally motivated against Joe, Katlaughing, et al...? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 08 May 06 - 10:17 AM Are we expected to believe now that all your posts/threads are *not* personally motivated against Joe, Katlaughing, et al...? I would accept that I would have some difficulty is asking our forum to accept that my posts and views were not personally motivated - were there evidence that I had posted abusive personal attacks and called any of my fellow these posters names because I did not agree with them or ever responded in kind to those abusive personal attacks that I am subjected to and not protected from. I have not done this. But I am NOT asking or expecting our forum to accept that my judgement is fair and not personally motived. It is (some of) our moderators who have set the example of indulging in abusive personal attacks upon their fellow invited guests who are asking this - and asking that they not be judged or treated unfairly and reacting with abusive personal attacks if they feel they are being treated unfairly. Anywhere but in the land of Mudlogic - those who would judge us - would expect to be judged in proportion to their responsibilities. And to give up the priviliges of their role - if they were (even once) seen to fail to set the required standard and example. Here (some of) or moderators repeatly fail and continue to publicly attempt to excuse, justify and defend these lapses and the unfair double standard under which this conduct is made and still expect our forum to accept their editing actions were not personally motivated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Richard Bridge Date: 08 May 06 - 01:13 PM I don't see any real points being addressed here. Unless we have a systematic list of what Roger said that was deleted we cannot judge whether it was appropriate for it to be deleted. In most societies it is accepted that some censorship is necessary. The issue is whether it is necessary in an idividual case. We do not seem to have the material here to judge that. I am disinclined to return to this thread. The persistence that Roger showed (and rightly so) in PEL issues may or may not be appropriate on this issue. I felt the original (if it is original) amendment by addition to one of Roger's thread titles was both positive and helpful and I do not see the need for the discussion to have become so obsessive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 08 May 06 - 01:54 PM The following judgement of my worth posted publicly in order to gain support - will explain why I continue to consider that all of the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Teams censorship actions against my postings are personally motivated. Remember that the following is only one side of this issue and much of it is simply not true..........But it does explain the thinking behind these judgements. Do you think it possible for me and our forum to accept that any subsequent action against my post (including imposed thread title changes) are NOT personally motivated? Subject: (thread title change complaint) From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 10 Aug 05 - 01:19 PM Well, I suppose it depends on what you think of the Forum Menu. Shambles believes in a right to free speech - and I think most of us do. He thinks that the Forum Menu is a vehicle for self-expression and that the right of free speech should extend to the Forum Menu, and I think the Forum Menu is merely an index. Shambles is a pioneer here, because he was one of the very first to attempt to use the Forum Menu as a platform for expression. When he started his PEL campaign in 2001, he worked hard to ensure that several PEL threads were visible on the Forum Menu at any given time. He'd refresh several PEL threads, all with the same lengthy message, to keep his PEL campaign in the people's eye. He even started threads that had the sole purpose of directing people to other PEL threads. He worked hard to fight for "turf" on the Forum Menu, making sure his PEL campaign stood out above all other topics of discussion. His PEL campaign was a very worthy cause, but his technique got to be too much. He was flooding the Forum with words, crowding out others who weren't so wordy. He often titled threads with deceptive titles like the ones you find in virus and advertising e-mails - the ones that try to trick you into opening them. So, a number of things were done to hold Shambles back a bit, since he didn't seem to be able to control himself. His PEL threads were given PEL tags, and they were crosslinked so he wouldn't need to keep repeating things that people could easily find in other threads. So, yes, many of the Shambles threads were retitled - they had a PEL tag added to them. Some (but not most) of the lengthy duplicate messages he posted were deleted - but one copy of each message was always left intact, and only the duplicates were deleted. Shambles went overboard, and kept on going overboard for months. Finally, he was subjected to a few controls - although not one of his words was deleted unless it was a duplicate of another statement he posted. So,Shambles has been having a tantrum since 2001. And as he went overboard on the PEL campaign and actually served to make his issue look ridiculous by the outrageous quantity and exaggeration of his remarks, he also does the same with his campaign against the editing work done at Mudcat. Gee, he even compares me to Hitler, and that's SO unfair. I have much nicer facial hair. So, that's the story. -Joe Offer- By the way – In reference to Joe Offer's claim that I have compared him with Hitler - I put The Shambles - Joe Offer and Hitler in the advance search and the only post that came-up was the following. http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1499823 I agree with both the preceeding guests, I have only been around for about 4 years, but in that time I've seen people condemned and castigated for a lot less the Martin Gibson got away with. I was disappointed that Joe Offer seemed to excuse him while on the other hand crossing swords with The Shambles over much less offensive postings. I also found it funny that a lot of people seemed to excuse Martin's behaviour on the grounds that he was pretty knowledgable on some aspects of folk music, and anyway he was being rude mostly below the line, which some seem to regard as 'beyond the pale' anyway. That's a bit like saying you excuse Hitler because he was good with kids. As has been said MG should have been curbed long before he got to be the problem he has to quite a few people, and he did show up a weakness in the policing of this forum that I love. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 May 06 - 02:18 PM Hear hear, Richard. Roger demands a site where there is little or no effort to moderate, or to use HIS term "censor". On the face of it, this precludes his complaining about other posters' opinion of him, if he wishes to be consistent. It appears that he has had one post deleted, which was subsequently restored, and he has not produced any evidence to refute that. Based on his half a decade of overreaction, he has managed to wind up some incredibly patient people to the point where they have reacted. To me, that suggests that he has made himself the supreme irritant factor in this forum, and is the most divisive individual involved in this nonsense. And he has the immortal gall (no pun intended) to demand that those who disagree should remove themselves to another forum. Whatever happened to his wish that all should be able to post their opinions freely, or does he now wish to impose his rules on the rest of us? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 08 May 06 - 02:35 PM I a sorry if dealing with all the different aspects of this issue is confusing - but we are not now permitted to discuss this subject and the double standards involved in the current 'system' of censorship - in more than one thread. The following is relevant to the issue of our moderators deciding to close a pefectly clearly titled thread with many contributions and containing a good discussion on the thread's title - with the excuse that the thread's originator requested it to be closed.Censorship and attitude rolled into one If you open that thread - you will see an example of the full incompetence of our current 'system' of censorship - which I suspect is the reason why the origignator's request to close this thread was so eagerly agreed to...Despite the philosphy of threads being a community effort - explained by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, below. What do you think? It is also relevant to the imposed closure of the new thread started to replace it to enable that discussion to continue. An option that is said to be open to us.... Censorship and Attitude rolled into TWO ----------------------------- PM] Joe Offer BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 26 Mar 05 >snip< So, Jeff created a utility that allows us to change thread titles, and we use it. With almost 78,000 threads, it's important that thread titles describe the contents of the thread. It's simply a process of indexing Mudcat threads so that it will be easier for people to use them. The philosophy is that the needs of the general community are more important the the wishes of the thread originator - although we do try to take the thread originator's intentions into consideration. Now, I'm sure that there are people who look on a thread as their platform for free speech, their personal Hyde Park for presenting their ideas. That's a valid point way of doing things, but that's not how things have been here at Mudcat. Thread originators have never had control of threads, and threads have always been the result of a community effort. This philosphy would appear to depend on how our moderators judge the individual posters concerned and whether they wish our forum to see the contents of the thread or wish to try prevent this by imposed thread closures - despite whatever the threads originator's request may be? For I made a specific request when originating the replacement thread Censorship and Attitude rolled into TWO for that thread (and its links) to be allowed to die a natural death and not be closed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 08 May 06 - 02:50 PM Roger demands a site where there is little or no effort to moderate, or to use HIS term "censor". Don - I really think your argument is with Max. I demand nothing - I just expect our forum to reflect the philosphy and intentions of our host towards all of his invited guests. Perhaps you should read some of this site's owner's public statements? [PM] Max The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? (81* d) RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? 12 Jan 00 >snip< Censorship will not happen. I do admit to deleting something here or there, but the ONLY two ways that will happen is if personal or delicate information is mistakenly posted and either I see it or the SUBJECT or POSTER requests that I remove it. The second way is if I feel like it (This is half a joke, the temptation as "The Man" to remove downright garbage is just too tempting sometimes, and I do reserve the ability for EXTREME situations, ex. Telling one to go ahead and do it in a suicide thread.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 08 May 06 - 02:58 PM I think I supplied the wrong link - this should work. Censorship and attitude rolled into one |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 May 06 - 03:57 PM Roger, once again you avoid the point of my post (I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, given that discussion of the point is not your strong suit). You defend the right of all posters to express their opinions freely, then, in the next breath you suggest that those whose opinions do not coincide with your own should either stop, or find another place to continue. You really can't have it both ways. Either you want complete freedom, and accept what follows, or you do not. If the former, you really can't complain if posters' are not to your liking. As for your self righteous insistence that you do not respond in kind, your use of certain terms for those you are attacking clearly gives the lie to your claim, as the way in which you use "anonymous fellow posters", "bouncers", etc. gives these appellations a denigratory and pejorative slant. You are as guilty of trying to shape Mudcat to your wishes as any of the people whom you so despise, maybe more so. At least they are following a course which is acceptable to the owner of this site, as evidenced by the fact that Max has neither overridden, nor sacked them. You may claim to know better than Max what is best for this community, but he is the final arbiter, and he is not showing any sign of being displeased with the management he has set up. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 08 May 06 - 04:04 PM Won wyziwyg, it seems that you are the one among others who have tight sphincters about what Shambles writes. I say it again, if you don't like what he writes, just don't read it. Yet, you and the others do and get consipated over it. I read it, also. doesn't bother me, any. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 08 May 06 - 05:30 PM You defend the right of all posters to express their opinions freely, then, in the next breath you suggest that those whose opinions do not coincide with your own should either stop, or find another place to continue. That of course is nothing like the truth. I simply point out that those who cannot accept the realities on which Max invited the public to contribute on our forum and who need to impose more and more petty restrictions on what others choose to post - in order to change our forum to their personal requirements, and who constantly tell others to go away if they do not like these imposed changes, have always been posting in the wrong place. Now that Max does not seem to wish to go along with the latest proposal and the admission is made that the current measures have failed - is there any choice but for those who support such things to go where they will be free to impose whatever restrictions they wish? Max has been asked and does not appear to wish to impose the proposed restrictions on the public. But our forum now knows that this is the shape of our form that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wishes to impose....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 08 May 06 - 06:03 PM I really struggle with what terrible crimes I could have perpertrated that would have ever justified any form of imposed censorship on my posts. Or what awful things I could have done that anyone would call for me to get banned for? I do know I am judged here to be a really horrible person - mostly by people who I have never met. However, my crime seems to boil down to just posting things that some other people would rather I didn't.......... He was flooding the Forum with words, crowding out others who weren't so wordy. Joe Offer Is such a crime really possible? Is there not enough room on our forum for all? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 02:51 AM A click on the following Martin's private insults (4) will show a screen telling you that this thread has been deleted. There is no explanation of why, when or by whom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 02:53 AM PM a person and letting them have it Has not been deleted and remains open.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 03:30 AM I don't see any real points being addressed here. Unless we have a systematic list of what Roger said that was deleted we cannot judge whether it was appropriate for it to be deleted. In this thread - you do have a record of (at least) some of the abusive personal attacks posted by the chief of the Mudcat Editing team has repeatedly made on me (in public). You can have more evidence of these posts - if you require it. As a result of this - can our forum ever accept that whatever censorship actions are imposed on my contributions are NOT personally motivated? For that is what the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are expecting you to accept..... You do have the material here to judge that question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 03:42 AM Thanks, Shambles. I had missed that one. I deleted it, too. If people want to do combat, they can do it elsewhere. Same criterion applies to the "insults" thread. -Joe Offer- You may have missed the above editing comment. The clear message from the following example is that if you want to indulge in combat and make abusive personal attacks on your fellow invited guests and claim these are not personally motivated - make sure you hold on to all the weapons.......... 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: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 04:59 AM Dunno, Roger. As I see it, I sometimes disagree with people, but I'm not combative. It's the combative stuff that causes trouble at Mudcat. and I do believe that needs to be controlled. Joe Offer Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something. Joe Offer ----- But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation. Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit Joe Offer. ------ Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying. Joe Offer ------ Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted. Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass. -Joe Offer- Joe I know that you do not consider that exapmles of such posts from you are combative. I know that you do not consider that such posts are setting an example that other posters will think acceptable and follow. I know that you still expect our forum to accept that your imposed censorship of my postings are NOT personally motivated. However, I suggest the evidence speaks for itself and your actions can have no remaining credibilty. So what do you intend to do about this and the effect this vain attempt, seemingly at all costs, to be seen to control every aspect of what others choose to post - is having on our forum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John MacKenzie Date: 09 May 06 - 08:50 AM Nobody ever said this place is a democracy! Nor should it be. G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Ebbie Date: 09 May 06 - 10:35 AM One more- just one more. Anyone who has children knows the phenomenon of a child whin(g)eing and ranting and pleading and conniving alternately in an effort to get its way, even when the child was given a clear answer early on. It is an exceedingly frustrating and draining experience for the parent. I've also read: Yes, God does answer prayers. It's just that sometimes we don't like the answer. And no, I'm not really comparing us with children and Max/Joe and clones as our parents - or to God - but they are the ones who set and relay the rules here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 10:39 AM User Name Thread Name Subject Posted [PM] Max Objectionable Material (50) RE: Objectionable Material 16 Apr 98 >snip< I happen to think that the forum is about we people that enjoy and find meaningful these musics. I like to hear about your lives and children, your odd thoughts and likes and dislikes. This is a community. Shall we discuss merely the one thing that puts us in common? I tell you, I made this forum to know you people and increase my knowledge of the universe and the people that I admire, respect and have something to share with. But what I think doesn't matter so much. This is a collective just like any other community by its definition. If I edited out all the messages that I did not find relevant or did not agree with, I am sure none of you would be here. Please critisize and disagree and bitch and moan all you want, I dig that. Just have respect for our brothers and sisters that come here too. They are like you... at least in one way... they are Mudcateers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 10:55 AM Please critisize and disagree and bitch and moan all you want, I dig that. Max Who now exactly is out of step on our forum? Thread #91207 Message #1733152 Posted By: Joe Offer 04-May-06 - 02:21 PM Thread Name: BS: Censorship and Attitude Rolled into TWO Subject: RE: BS: Censorship and Attitude Rolled into TWO You know, Shambles, we were all talking about this very subject in Is Closing Threads Censorship?. In fact, I think I made some very good points in that thread. Why is it that you feel a compulsion to start yet another thread? Is it because you can't stand up to logic, that you have to move away from those who try to face up to you with reason and factual information? Isn't that just plain cowardice? You have been a problem here for a long time, Shambles. You try to overwhelm Mudcat with countless repetitions of your groundless accusations. Pehaps we should make a new rule, just for you: perhaps we should say that we will allow only one open thread with more than ten Shambles posts at a time. I suppose you'd come up with a way around that - you'd start a new thread every time you hit nine posts in an old one. You seem to be trying to make Mudcat into a forum that centers around Shambles, and I don't think it's fair to the rest of us to allow that to continue. Feel free to say what you have to say - but quit all this repetition and this constant opening of new threads. In general, then, please be advised that we will allow only one "Shambles thread" to be open at a time, and I will take editorial action to enforce that. I will handle the enforcement of this particular policy - not the volunteers. -Joe Offer- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since there is already an ongoing discussion of this subject, this thread (Censorship and Attitude Rolled into TWO) is closed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 10:59 AM [PM] Max The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? (81* d) RE: The future of Mudcat. What do YOU think? 12 Jan 00 Thank you Shambles. I think some may not catch what your trying to do. The Mudcat's gonna grow. There will be a lot more content, a lot more people, a lot more posts, a lot more media, a lot more songs. We can't stop that now. But does this change anything? Some of us may get nervous that our happy world here may change, but what ever stays the same? The Real World is what it is, as is the Mudcat, and both are changing and growing everyday. Fear not the future, fear not the growth, fear not the change. It all comes down to one simple thing: It will be what we make it... PERIOD Max |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 12:37 PM Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored? From: katlaughing - PM Date: 23 Apr 06 - 05:20 PM YOU need to be banned, Roger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 09 May 06 - 01:22 PM Shambles you are a moron and someone should delete you...permanently. There is no such thing as censorship on a privately owned site. The owner or his designees have 100% of the power to mold the site into what they want it to be. They can cut out all comments on any subject, by any poster,etc. for whatever reason they want and that is fine because it is the owner's site and not your or mine. If someone is not happy then that person can open their own version of Mudcat. Why don't you leave and do that Shambles? You contribute absolutely nothing with all of your repititious rants. Start your own site and say whatever you want and then edit out all those who don't agree with you. It will make you happy and it will probably make a lot of other people happy. You can even block all responses from Martin Gibson if you so desire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,another Date: 09 May 06 - 02:01 PM You are missing the point. He doesn't have a problem with the site max intended, but it has evolved far away from that now. Those doing the editing are now over fervent to say the least and fine exponents of the personal attacks that they rant about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John MacKenzie Date: 09 May 06 - 02:24 PM I believe there are about 10 clones, with access to a delete button, are they all being accused of conducting personal vendettas against Shambles? Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 09 May 06 - 02:37 PM I do get the point. If Max didn't approve of what they were doing he would put a stop to it. I'm sure that he doesn't ignore what is going on. It is his decision that the editing continues. Accept it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 02:43 PM Please critisize and disagree and bitch and moan all you want, I dig that. Max ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You may claim to know better than Max what is best for this community, but he is the final arbiter, and he is not showing any sign of being displeased with the management he has set up. Don T. I of course make no such claim but Max is also NOT showing any sign of being pleased with the conduct of those he entrusted certain aspects of our forum to. He has not agreed to our bouncer's latest proposal to limit the public's access to the BS section and for all guest postings to be 'reviewed' on the music section. Nor has he made any public reaction to their admitted failure to impose the peace they require without this latest proposal being accepted. Do you see this as a vote of confidence for our current 'system' to continue to divide us? Perhaps our forum will be told by Max what is now proposed to replace it - following the publicly admitted failure of our current 'system'? For I am sure that those currently imposing their judgement upon us would not want to continue imposing these failed measures.........? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 02:51 PM I believe there are about 10 clones, with access to a delete button, are they all being accused of conducting personal vendettas against Shambles? Giok No they are not - but if they were accused of this - how could they demonstrate that their judgement and imposed editing actions were not unfair and personally motivated against any individual fellow invited guest? But have you missed the posts where the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team (whose censorship actions are most suspect of being personally motivated) takes full responsibility for the actions of all the rest of his team, even the anonymous ones? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 09 May 06 - 03:04 PM Shambles....you are [bleep] (for antisocial behavior) indeed an asshole!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John MacKenzie Date: 09 May 06 - 03:05 PM I think the relevant dates of the two quotes made by Max and Don T should be quoted. I believe that about 6 years elapsed between the two, and a more up to date message from Max might be in order, to see if he still feels the same in view of the amount of abuse and back biting there has been since he originally made it. You keep saying, obviously Max doesn't agree with Joe Offers suggestion that members only post in the BS section. How do you know this, have you been told it by Max? As for "how do we know their editing decisions are not personally motivated?" we don't, we have to trust that they are fair in their actions. After all as I said previously, this is not, and never will be a democracy. If it were then we would be able to vote off Clones or Posters we don't like by collecting enough signatures. Now that WOULD be an interesting exercise!! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: jeffp Date: 09 May 06 - 03:15 PM I of course make no such claim but Max is also NOT showing any sign of being pleased with the conduct of those he entrusted certain aspects of our forum to. Neither has he shown any signs of being displeased. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 03:19 PM You keep saying, obviously Max doesn't agree with Joe Offers suggestion that members only post in the BS section. How do you know this, have you been told it by Max? No from someone much more in the know. It was Catspaw.....Or was it Bill D? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 03:27 PM Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Bill D - PM Date: 19 Apr 06 - 05:56 PM and perhaps it should just stay where it is until and UNLESS it become a reality. We don't NEED 'comments' on something that may not happen. YOU want comments...and an extra forum for YOUR 'comments'. What part of "denied" did you fail to grasp? --------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: catspaw49 - PM Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:26 AM Because you just can't have too many Shamblecentric threads!!! Actually, Joe moved it to BS (which it is.....if it were being considered by Max and about to be implemented, you can be assured it would be on the whole forum) but Shambo couldn't take it up with Max or take no for an answer so he started a second one. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 03:30 PM But have you missed the posts where the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team (whose censorship actions are most suspect of being personally motivated) takes full responsibility for the actions of all the rest of his team, even the anonymous ones? Or do I have to dig those out too? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 09 May 06 - 03:36 PM Sweet Jesus get this person a job and out of the House or a workplace without a computer before he disappears up his own ---- amen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 09 May 06 - 04:09 PM Never have so many spent so much time posting so many messages on something that they have absolutely not one bit of control over. Get a life. [bleep] (for antisocial behavior)Sambles, you, on the other hand, should end your life because you are a useless specimen of humanity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Wesley S Date: 09 May 06 - 04:22 PM Guest - That's over the line and you know it. I can only assume that you are trying to be deleated for some reason. If you don't like his threads don't read them. Move on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 09 May 06 - 04:29 PM It was a momentary lapse. The man is just so full of himself and so childish. Kind of like an immature Don Quixote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Alba Date: 09 May 06 - 05:01 PM From: GUEST Date: 09 May 06 - 04:09 PM Really nasty, no excuse, NONE. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 09 May 06 - 05:03 PM Oh me Oh my, now I've really gone and done it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Wesley S Date: 09 May 06 - 05:03 PM Who's the immature one guest ? Really - there are lots of other threads to read here. Go for it. Pick one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 06:44 PM PM] Max An Open Letter from Max to GUESTS (292* d) An Open Letter from Max to GUESTS 10 Feb 02 Dear GUESTS, The Mudcat is a place that like minded people communicate and share their knowledge and their lives. We come from different backgrounds, different countries, different ideals, different religions, morals and lifestyles. With these differences, it amazes me that we have so much in common. The format, technology and philosophy of the Mudcat design have been carefully crafted for almost 6 years to facilitate this very diverse community. I have steadfastly or stubbornly held to an ideal of openness since our beginning because I thought that was what was necessary to mimic the real world and to make it easy and comfortable for new folks to discover and learn about our community and ease their way into it. For the first time since I started this whole thing, I am very thoughtfully considering an alternative. With GUESTS posting as they are today, I have no interest in continuing as I have. You are hurting me. Not just my feelings or my pride in what we have accomplished here, but also in a real concrete way. As many of you know, the economy is in the tank, and Onstage can no longer finance the Mudcat. The members have contributed a great deal of money, in January specifically, that will keep us running for at least 6 months to come. We are up for 2 grants from Folk Song Societies come March and April. All of our sources of financing are highly deterred by the behavior and ability of GUESTS. Probably about _ or our income comes from people and organizations that care about us because we are a Music Resource with no equal. The other ¼ is because of the community. Zero is from GUESTS. So, in these times of necessity, I need to prioritize in gratitude for those who care about the Mudcat in real ways. Real ways are the contributions of money and the contributions of knowledge. Neither comes from GUESTS. Please stop this behavior, I ask nicely, nay, I beg of you. There is no point to this. This forum is not just words on a page; these are people behind these posts. People who are here to share themselves, their knowledge, their time and even their homes. What you are doing is littering in the park. A free place we can all come to and do our thing, whether we want to meet people and discuss our interests or just sit on the benches and read. You are also personally attacking me. This is my creation, and you are ruining it. You are jeopardizing the only financing we have. If you do not hear my plea, and find some human compassion and stop this now, I will have no choice but to put a fence around my park to keep you out. Flamers and Trolls of the past always seemed to want something. They would flame BS, Prayer, Healing, etc. threads in protest that this should be a Music-Only Web site. Or they would pick on specific people they did not like. I cannot figure out what you GUESTS want or why you do this other than some egocentric joy from destruction. If I knew what you wanted I could deal with this issue in a surgical fashion and address only those issues without changing one of our core philosophies. But, I do not expect that you want anything. Nor do I suspect you will grant me my plea to please stop this. If that is the case, I have no choice but to implement measures to deal with you. That is, no anonymous postings. At a minimum, you will have to be a member, you will receive your password via a valid email address and your IP address will be recorded. Any behavior that I don't like (no jury, no trial) and your cut off. A technological challenge that I am looking forward to. MEMBERS: We are discussing our options and our technology now, and will post an Open Letter to Members in a week or two to explain what we have decided. There will be no debate, I've heard all there is to hear about this issue. I will do as I see fit. Sincerely, Max D. Spiegel Publisher |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 06:50 PM If I knew what you wanted I could deal with this issue in a surgical fashion and address only those issues without changing one of our core philosophies. Max ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Is closing threads censorship? From: michaelr Date: 09 May 06 - 07:22 PM "I've heard all there is to hear about this issue." (Max) That was four years ago. How long until you finally get it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 07:33 PM That was four years ago. How long until you finally get it? In that there would not seem much point in the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team recording his latest proposal for yet more restrictions to Max then? He seems to think there is - perhaps you should also be telling him not to bother? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This thread on the HELP forum may be of interest. At least while it remains undeleted there. http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=3210&messages=9 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 09 May 06 - 07:34 PM "Is closing threads censorship?" Yes. Say no more - nudge, nudge, wink, wink... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Little Hawk Date: 09 May 06 - 07:36 PM Anybody out there listening? Close this fucking thread. Do it now. You can quote me, Roger. ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 07:39 PM Do I shit in your Shatners? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 09 May 06 - 07:39 PM Nice one fooles. Hope you get what you're after. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Little Hawk Date: 09 May 06 - 07:43 PM If you did, I'd take it as a vote of confidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: catspaw49 Date: 09 May 06 - 07:43 PM Shamlogic runs amok yet again.......Posts by all are interpreted to mean whatever suits the Shambworld viewpoint and many times used both for and against depending on the situation. Its beautiful to watch.....ya' know?........ the skill with which Shambolina does this!!!! Impressive as the balls on a 5 year old hog........ For a man who has never been censored save the title addition, Sham sure can beat on it can't he? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 09 May 06 - 07:49 PM He really gets to you doesn't it. Now that's amusing to watch spaw. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 07:57 PM Impressive as the balls on a 5 year old hog........ I'll take that as a compliment from one who would seem to spend a lot of time studying pig's testicles - and who tends to post like an expert on that subject......... [PM] Max another one lost (57* d) RE: another one lost 18 Sep 00 In Life and On Mudcat: ...You have control of your environment and your actions. You can choose to get and take and give what you want and refuse the rest. ...You may think that you, just one person, could not change this world when in fact you might. ...All we can really do is show by example. ...Create WHAT IS with our collective desires, passions, beliefs, personalities, etc. Life is what you make it. (and without The Big Guy's help the Mudcat sure is what we make it!) Members come and go, we have to deal with that, but now we're scaring away the new folks. Lets get some love in the air! huh folks? Take that energy that you waste on complaining and spread some joy, kind words, and music threads for GOD'S sake. Max |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Ebbie Date: 09 May 06 - 08:17 PM Shambles, is there something you overlooked? You, yourself, pasted and posted this thought from Max: "...have no choice but to implement measures to deal with you. That is, no anonymous postings. At a minimum, you will have to be a member, you will receive your password via a valid email address and your IP address will be recorded. Any behavior that I don't like (no jury, no trial) and your cut off. A technological challenge that I am looking forward to. Obviously Max decided against it - at leazt for that time- but as you can see, he has seriously considered doing just what Joe is proposing now. So where do you get the idea that Max is against it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: catspaw49 Date: 09 May 06 - 08:39 PM Oh it was a compliment Roger.....You have this remarkable ability to take any statement and turn it to your purpose and then turn it completely round to suit a different purpose completely contradictory to the first. That is no mean feat! And yeah, I live here in hogland, a major pork producing state and the home of several breeds, especially the "Poland China." The Hog Barn at the county and state fairs is always a major attraction, second only to the Dairy barn and the giant butter sculptures. It was at our local county fair about 15 years ago where there was this old farmer who had gotten his 15 minutes of fame on David Letterman with the world's largest hog. He was there walking "Chief" around outside the pig barn and giving autographs and photo opps. Chief had the biggest balls I have ever seen on a hog....like a rugby ball/American football......huge Man! So Karen and I walk up among the circle of people looking at Chief and as soon as the damn hog looks at me, he heads my way with his snout heading right for MY balls!!! I do the back stepp and try to get Farmer Fred's attention and he slowly turns saying, "C'meer Chief....C'meer Chief" I laugh nervously, Karen cracks up, and the crowd laughs too. Farmer Brown finally gets Chief headed the other way and we wander off making jokes about the hog's sexual orientation. A bit later we see Chief again and sure enough he heads right towards me and we move on down the line to look at the quilts, giant pumpkins, and to dine on French Fried Pickles and Funnel Cakes. After negotiating the Midway and petting the goats, we emerged from the goat barn and once again saw Chief about 50 foot away. Sure enough, came right for me.....Big pig was queer for me!!! I read Chief had died a few months later and I always figured it was of a broken heart. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Little Hawk Date: 09 May 06 - 08:42 PM It's a damn shame that hog died without getting to consummate his unquenched desire for you, Spaw. Damn shame. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: catspaw49 Date: 09 May 06 - 08:44 PM Yeah.....I kinda' regretted it myself............... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 06 - 02:00 AM So where do you get the idea that Max is against it? Because Catspaw and Bill D have both informed our forum that it was not going to happen.......And they should know. I suspect that if Max did now agree (and was considering such a major change) he would have been kind enough to inform our forum that he had changed his mind and that he was now seriously considering it. Or indeed would have already made the requested change - in the time since the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team publicly recorded the current 'system's failure and made the proposal that the required peace could only be imposed on our forum with this change. What do you think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Ebbie Date: 10 May 06 - 02:33 AM I'm trying to be patient here... Shambles, you are not addressing the fact that - according to what Max wrote and that you yourself posted - requiring Member status and allowing NO Guest postings was at one time seriously considered by him. That wasn't Joe talking - it was Max. You keep pushing, man, and you may get just the opposite of what you claim you want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 06 - 03:06 AM Shambles, you are not addressing the fact that - according to what Max wrote and that you yourself posted - requiring Member status and allowing NO Guest postings was at one time seriously considered by him. That wasn't Joe talking - it was Max. And you are not addressing many other facts and issues raised here. But I did address the fact that Max had said this. You are also being rather selective about what parts of Max's public statements you choose to address or ignore. But perhaps we can agree that whatever he may have said in this post - he has not given any public indication that intends to change the open public invitation to our forum? So we can only guess at what Max's reaction may be to what he may see as the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Teams public attempt to force his hand Proposal for members only posting of BS. And to the resulting state of limbo.......As there was NOT an overwhelming clamour from our forum in favour of this latest restriction proposed by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. As Music posts by Guests to be reviewed (2) has not been closed - perhaps the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is keeping that one open in the expectation of annoucing in it that Max has now agreed to his proposal? Perhaps now, Max has no option but to agree? What do you think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Joe Offer Date: 10 May 06 - 04:16 AM I think I did say that no changes can be made until all of the problems from last summer's crash are fixed. We still have duplicate database entries for the Digital Tradition and member photos and links and some others, and those have to be fixed. We also have some underlying reliability issues to resolve. And yes, we know exactly what the problems are and how to resolve them - but there are things we have to wait for, so they're done the way we want them to be done. After that, maybe we'll consider doing something to resolve the problem of trolling by anonymous troublemakers. Members-only posting in "BS" is one option we've considered. Shambles presented that "option" in a rather disproportional manner, as if it were some sort of edict being imposed from above. Still, I can't see any real value in extending BS-posting privileges to those who won't trust us enough to even give their names. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 06 - 04:45 AM What is Max's view? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 06 - 05:06 AM Still, I can't see any real value in extending BS-posting privileges to those who won't trust us enough to even give their names. -Joe Offer- Why should anyone be expected to trust 'you' when 'you' do not trust the rest of 'us' enough to supply the names of (some of) those who feel qualified to impose their judgement on the rest of 'us'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 06 - 05:17 AM And of course as usual - it arse-backwards. 'You' are not proposing 'extending BS-posting privileges'. 'You' are now proposing placing further restrictions on the BS-posting privieges that the rest of 'us' have already be invited to take-up by Max and are currently and freely exercising. Apparently this is to your displeasure. So perhaps you can go and find another forum where you can impose all the posting restrictions you wish? Tell me - have you really got the poor lad gagged and tied-up in the cellar? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: John MacKenzie Date: 10 May 06 - 05:53 AM "MEMBERS: We are discussing our options and our technology now, and will post an Open Letter to Members in a week or two to explain what we have decided. There will be no debate, I've heard all there is to hear about this issue. I will do as I see fit. Sincerely, Max D. Spiegel Publisher" You appear to have answered all your own questions in that one quote Roger! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 06 - 06:21 AM Then there would equally not seem much point in the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team publicly recording his latest proposal for yet more restrictions to Max then? Unless he knows the poor lad is gagged and tied-up in the cellar? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 06 - 06:23 AM Please critisize and disagree and bitch and moan all you want, I dig that. Max Seems clear enough.................. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 06 - 11:21 AM At least it looks as if we will not be having the originator of this thread asking for it to be closed and our moderators eagerly rushing to comply.... This link to a thread in the HELP forum will (at least partly) explain. http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=3214&messages=6 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST,MrMr Date: 10 May 06 - 05:20 PM Joe Offer said: "Still, I can't see any real value in extending BS-posting privileges to those who won't trust us enough to even give their names." Imagine, there are people here who don't even trust you enough to give you their names. Hmmmm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 10 May 06 - 07:54 PM We also have some underlying reliability issues to resolve. Joe Offer *smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Little Hawk Date: 10 May 06 - 08:16 PM If someone doesn't close this f*cking thread, I swear I will shoot my cute little weiner dog! Actually, I'm just looking for a good excuse to do so anyway. He shat on the rug again, peed on the potted plants, and stole a roast chicken when I had my back turned for less than five seconds! He's a bastard. He deserves to die. ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 10 May 06 - 08:21 PM In the event you wish another option, LH, here's an idea . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Little Hawk Date: 10 May 06 - 08:26 PM Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!! That is the funniest damn picture of a dachshund I've ever seen, and it looks like him too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Little Hawk Date: 10 May 06 - 08:53 PM Check this one out... dachshund earns his keep |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 10 May 06 - 09:06 PM Dachshund after spring rain . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 06 - 01:31 AM If someone doesn't close this f*cking thread, I swear I will shoot my cute little weiner dog! Have you shot it yet? If it bothers you so - why open it and why post only to refresh this thread? Why don't you ask the originator of this thread to ask for it to be closed? Or ask Max? I suspect you will find them both bound and gagged in the same cellar. I am glad you're keeping this thread open, Martin--and I am glad that there are a few others as well who recognize that this is not about Shambles, and the questions we all have can not be dealt with by simply being dismissive of Shambles-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 06 - 06:06 AM Music posts by Guests to be reviewed(2) has now also been closed. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 14 Jul 06 - 05:46 AM I consider that "my work here is done" in the classic B-movie phrase. Please now close his thread?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 14 Jul 06 - 06:05 AM Will all threads be closed on request when the thread's originator asks for this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 14 Jul 06 - 07:23 AM You may find that by placing your enquiry here Help Section it will allow it to be seen by the Mudcat Administration as I doubt that this is a question Visitors to the Mudcat can answer for you. Alternatively you may want to address your question directly to the Site Owner. You can do this quite easily through the Help Section also. Hope this information is of use to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 14 Jul 06 - 09:42 AM When the object is to ask a question - there are many way of of obtaining some form of answer. If the object is to start a thread and encourage a discussion on a subject - the threads are the correct place for this. What is now happening, is that having started a discussion in a thread - the originator is now encouraged to think that having started the thread and the discussion - they have some right to also close the discussion in this thread when they wish, by asking and expecting the thread to be closed. Presumambly no one else who may have contributed does have a say and anyone who may haved wished to contribute to that discussion will not be able to. Perhaps once started - all threads can remain open? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 14 Jul 06 - 09:48 AM Mudcat's stated goals fRoots message board – do you post? fRoots message board |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 14 Jul 06 - 11:14 AM at it again, I see |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: BB Date: 14 Jul 06 - 02:38 PM Shambles, why are you asking to close this thread? It's more often than not you that posts to it! And it does help to keep the rest of us up to date with what's going on re licencing. Barbara
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 14 Jul 06 - 03:00 PM I have been struggling for some time to keep this issue and this particular thread on our forum. For your information- Joe Offer has already closed this thread once. This was fairly recently when another poster started another on a similar subject. Joe decided (without making any contact) that there can only ever be one thread on one subject and despite all the information contained on this one - decided to close this one but to keep the new one open. I did manage to get him to change his mind then, but I am very weary of fighting with him over this issue. And trying to prevent him from closing, moving or editing any thread I start or contribute to. He has had personal issues with me for some time and is unable to separate these from the various issues at stake here and his role as a 'moderator'. I have no real desire to see this (or any other) thread closed and was mainly trying to bring attention to this situation. http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=3199&messages=9
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 15 Jul 06 - 03:04 AM Nothing personal - that's just the way it is. Sadly it may be the way it is - but I consider that the personal likes and dislikes of any poster by any 'fellow poster/moderator' should not be a factor in important issues like this. Assumptions about any poster's possible motivation are not matters for 'moderators' to publicly speculate and 'gossip' about in order to provide justification and cover for so many editing actions that are clearly personally motivated. I will post Joe Offer's side of the story for you to judge..... Subject: (thread title change complaint) From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 10 Aug 05 - 01:19 PM Well, I suppose it depends on what you think of the Forum Menu. Shambles believes in a right to free speech - and I think most of us do. He thinks that the Forum Menu is a vehicle for self-expression and that the right of free speech should extend to the Forum Menu, and I think the Forum Menu is merely an index. Shambles is a pioneer here, because he was one of the very first to attempt to use the Forum Menu as a platform for expression. When he started his PEL campaign in 2001, he worked hard to ensure that several PEL threads were visible on the Forum Menu at any given time. He'd refresh several PEL threads, all with the same lengthy message, to keep his PEL campaign in the people's eye. He even started threads that had the sole purpose of directing people to other PEL threads. He worked hard to fight for "turf" on the Forum Menu, making sure his PEL campaign stood out above all other topics of discussion. His PEL campaign was a very worthy cause, but his technique got to be too much. He was flooding the Forum with words, crowding out others who weren't so wordy. He often titled threads with deceptive titles like the ones you find in virus and advertising e-mails - the ones that try to trick you into opening them. So, a number of things were done to hold Shambles back a bit, since he didn't seem to be able to control himself. His PEL threads were given PEL tags, and they were crosslinked so he wouldn't need to keep repeating things that people could easily find in other threads. So, yes, many of the Shambles threads were retitled - they had a PEL tag added to them. Some (but not most) of the lengthy duplicate messages he posted were deleted - but one copy of each message was always left intact, and only the duplicates were deleted. Shambles went overboard, and kept on going overboard for months. Finally, he was subjected to a few controls - although not one of his words was deleted unless it was a duplicate of another statement he posted. So,Shambles has been having a tantrum since 2001. And as he went overboard on the PEL campaign and actually served to make his issue look ridiculous by the outrageous quantity and exaggeration of his remarks, he also does the same with his campaign against the editing work done at Mudcat. Gee, he even compares me to Hitler, and that's SO unfair. I have much nicer facial hair. So, that's the story.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: BB Date: 15 Jul 06 - 01:50 PM OK, Shambles, from what you have posted of Joe's words, his viewpoint doesn't sound unreasonable. I too find it somehat annoying to find the same posts from you in different threads. This thread seems to be all that is necessary to keep people up-to-date with what's happening, and is a convenient thread to come back to when needing to find something that has been posted about the Premises Licence and how it affects live music. If items posted about it go in different threads, it is harder to find them, because one can't remember to which thread a particular thing was posted. Let's do as Joe suggest and keep it to just this one. But please keep posting information! Barbara |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 16 Jul 06 - 02:20 PM OK, Shambles, from what you have posted of Joe's words, his viewpoint doesn't sound unreasonable. Barbara. I did say that it was Joe' side of the story - so perhaps it is hardly surprising that you may find that his words of explanation sound reasonable.....The truth is perhaps not quite this. Do you consider that it was also reasonable for him to close this thread for the reasons and in the manner he did? My view has always been that this issue is about trying to remove petty-fogging restrictions and is a pefectly suitable issue for our forum, so all our other diferences and minor irritations should be really secondary to this..... I regret that trying keep people informed and discuss this issue on out forum has itself been subject to many petty-fogging restrictions and judgements and that the persoanal differences between Joe Offer and myself have gotten in the way. Hopefully they will not do so in the future. One way to do this is to try and ensure that all threads remain open.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Gospel music is Gaelic? UK TV 21 Mar 05 From: The Shambles Date: 18 Jul 06 - 06:16 AM Azizi I was making a point, and for what it is worth - you have my full support for carrying on this interesting discussion here - for I know you mean no harm in continuing this thread when you posted the following. I'm sorry, Shambles for going off topic so much in this thread. The topic of Black Gospel music is very important to me, and I admit to getting swept away in the history of that topic more than in your specific question of the Gaelic roots of that music form. I very much recognize that this general discussion is far afield from the specific topic of gospel music in gaelic. If this thread remains open, I'll henceforth limit any comments I make to that specific topic. Perhaps there is another thread on Black Gospel Music. If no such thread exist yet-and if someone wants to start one, I'll probably join in the discussion. I think I've started enough threads for a while... Again, sorry. I meant no harm. But you will be able to confirm that the post you are quite obviously replying to in this thread - has now been deleted from it? Other posts of mine have recently been deleted from other threads but in these cases the evidence for this censorship has been deleted along with these posts. Something which appears to have also happened to another poster in another thread - despite Joe Offer's assurance that such things do not happen. Perhaps you will be so kind as to confirm this? Subject: RE: BS: Religion=good folk doing bad things? From: The Shambles - PM Date: 18 Jul 06 - 06:01 AM Hi, Slag - I can't find any evidence that any of your posts have been deleted or edited. We usually delete only personal attacks, racism, and spam. -Joe Offer- You will also find no evidence that recent posts of mine have been deleted and from more than one thread - because the evidence has been deleted along with the posts. As none of these posts were personal attacks, racism or spam - perhaps they can be replaced? |
