 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Is closing threads censorship?
|
|
|
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? |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 14 Jul 06 - 11:14 AM at it again, I see |
|
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: 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: 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 - 06:05 AM Will all threads be closed on request when the thread's originator asks for this? |
|
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: 11 May 06 - 06:06 AM Music posts by Guests to be reviewed(2) has now also been closed. |
|
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: Peace Date: 10 May 06 - 09:06 PM Dachshund after spring rain . . . . |
|
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: 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: 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 - 08:16 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 04:45 AM What is Max's view? |
|
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 - 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: 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 - 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: catspaw49 Date: 09 May 06 - 08:44 PM Yeah.....I kinda' regretted it myself............... 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 - 08:39 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: The Shambles Date: 09 May 06 - 07:39 PM Do I shit in your Shatners? |
|
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 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: GUEST Date: 09 May 06 - 05:03 PM Oh me Oh my, now I've really gone and done it. |
