BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)

Subject: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:55 AM

Closed threads & deleted posts (2)

The above thread was closed with the following editing comment.

Thread closed. Shambles started posting his complaints in another thread.
-Joe Offer-

The last time the excuse used for closing the thread was spam.

The 'offending' posts used to be moved to this one - but this time - they seem to have been deleted.

The following post was probably the post that was liked the least by our 'moderators' and which they do not want our forum to see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: The crack down
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 05 Jan 07 - 06:35 AM

Oh, and I see all these anonymous, nonspecific complaints thrown here and there about Catspaw. We don't allow personal attacks, and if I receive complaints from individuals who have been attacked by any Mudcatter, I'll review the situation. The thing is, I have never directly received a specific complaint about Catspaw from an identified person, and most people seem to think his posts are funny and not malicious. If you have reason to object to a post that is directed at you, contact me by personal message or e-mail. Anonymous complaints and complaints posted in the Forum are ignored.

Sadly - imposed editing actions from anonymous fellow posters cannot be ignored by those victims whose posts are subjected to the 'silent deletion'.

The specific 'complaints' posted from an identified long-term member were to the effect that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is publicly seen to be encouraging the posting of these abusive personal attacks from certain favoured posters at the same time as being seen to be banning another for the same thing.

It would appear that the only 'complaints' from one poster about another are ever encouraged and actions - but I see little point in this. Those who post abusive personal attacks only show themselves in a poor light (or perhaps their true colours) and can be ignored. And posters can be encouraged to ignore them and anything else that may not be to their taste.

But if it is announced by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that a 'crack down' on such postings is in operation - our forum may be puzzled as to what effect he judges his openly displayed position is having.

If you want a formally worded complaint from an identified long-term memeber - here it comes.

That the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is being seen to allow, justify, excuse and openly encourge such posts from certain favoured posters whilst being seen to take action against others for the same thing.

When at the same time publicly announcing to our forum a crack down on such posts.

And by setting this example of unfair and personally motivated treatment - has compromised all on our forum (no matter how well-intentioned this may be judged to be) - and demonstrated a complete unsuitability for this role by threatening and constantly placing posters in positions where they feel they have to publicly take sides.

I formally request that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team should resign or be removed from this role - before any more damage is caused to our forum.

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-
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Shamby-Pamby what is your problem man? Every swingin' dick in the joint has prettty much told you to get bent but you can't take "Fuck You" for an answer! Let me repeat for your benefit.....FUCK YOU!.....and the horse you rode in on. Matter of fact, you need to notice that your horse was killed by the last windmill you failed to topple but a broke-dick fanook like yourself probably beats animals. Matter of fact we DID see that from you before didn't we? Why not drop this sillyass vendetta against Max? You DO relaize that it is Max you're attacking here don't you? Probably not.....what a fuckin' mook............
Catspaw
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:04 PM

Well, I used to give you equal treatment, Shambles - but you kept badgering me about that being repressive censorship.
So, you got what you asked for. Catspaw can say what he likes about you, until such time as you stop your incessant campaign against the way we do things here. You are not a nice person, Shambles. Do not expect to be treated nicely.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The crack down
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:57 AM

Closed threads & deleted posts (3)

Subject: RE: BS: The crack down
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:59 AM

Closed threads & deleted posts (2)

Has been closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 07:03 AM

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post where no editing action in fact took place and did not refresh this thread.

Oh, no! I thought you were the holy one.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 07:09 AM

Villianization starts early in the morning, doesn't it, replete with good guy/bad guy namimg, and it comes down from on high. Why should the personality likes and dislikes of Joe Offer and 'moderators' control any posting matter? Mudcat needs standards, not arbitrariness, capriciousness, and favoritism.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: My guru always said
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 07:26 AM

Just a quick phrase I noticed in the 'cut&paste' in the first post of this thread which I assume is either from Max or Joe in the closed thread:

If you have reason to object to a post that is directed at you, contact me by personal message or e-mail. Anonymous complaints and complaints posted in the Forum are ignored.

Looks self-explanatory to me & good advice!

Subject: RE: BS: The crack down
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 07:30 AM

Deleted posts & closed threads

Has been closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 07:35 AM

A personal complaint and attack by management, against a member no less, launches this thread. Should we ignore it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 07:39 AM

Isn't it awful what they did to Marie Antoinnette?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: jacqui.c
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 07:47 AM

And her such a humanitarian too!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 07:53 AM

Looks self-explanatory to me & good advice!

There is nothing in this assurance to say that both courses of action cannot be attempted.

I have formally complained privately.

And I have always made my views public to enable our forum to openly discuss aspects that affect all posters.

There is also nothing in this assurance that suggests that it would be seen to be honoured any more that all the other assurances that our forum have been given and which are seen not to be honoured.

When the example is set by our 'moderators' of complaining about, imposing actions on, judging the worth of individual named posters, outing them, indulging in making personal abusive attacks on them, encouraging certain favoured posters to follow this example and asking and expecting public support for such actions and the Help and Trouble Forum seems to be set up to encourge complaints against fellow posters and to request actions to be imposed on others - it may sound a little hypocritical to expect posters to post any concerns about our 'moderators's' actions to be conducted privately.

Don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 07:58 AM

What they did to Marie Antoinette

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:05 AM

I have some cake spare for the bourgoise if so required.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:16 AM

Well, I VERY seldom open these threads, but, I just had to see what was up.

Roger said... "...our 'moderators' and which they do not want our forum to see."

"Our"? You STILL at that crap?

Take off, eh, ya hoser.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:17 AM

What happened to the first post, quoted in the second (which now appears to be the first)?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:25 AM

I hope it's an early casualty of Joe's new crackdown!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:32 AM

Which crackdown, G-Man, on which subset of posters?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:34 AM

All naughty posters XG-Man.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:39 AM

And really all this is besides the point. In my opinion, whether I and others here are liked or disliked shouldn't be the issue.

What I'm concerned about is the potential and/or real acts of incivility and the real & potential misuse of power without consistent consequences.

I'm sharing these opinions not to cause trouble but to try to help this community address what I consider to be real & potential areas of weakness.

That is just about saying it all. It is only a shame that so few posters are prepared to stick their heads up and say it. But hardly surprising as they fear they too will be targeted and accused of making trouble if they do.

The problem is that when such things are posted - it is either ignored, the poster's worth are judged and their motives and mental health speculated about or some vague reassurance is provided (or excuse about best efforts etc) and nothing is seen to change.

Except that in the face of this - fewer and fewer posters seem prepared to stay and try and post what is plainly true.

The only thing our forum can be sure of is that if any poster is not satisfied and does not shut up or go away - they will be subjected to the very misuses of power without consequences that they were concerned and posting about in the first place.

If the very least to be expected is posting with civilty - the example should be seen to be set by those who would feel themselves qualified to judge the rest of us.

If this is not going to happen - and there is very little sign that it is even likely - then it is up to posters to demonstrate that a better example can be set - than being seen to be adopting the very same bullying tactics used by flamers and trolls.

For then there can never be any discernable difference.

But now this biggest single and counter-productive weakness now appears to be seen - by our 'moderators' and their few but noisy supporters as a strength.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:44 AM

Naughty posters abound here, G-Man, and they aren't all guests. And the first post a guest mentioned came from Mudcat management.

Subject: RE: BS: The crack down
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:50 AM

Closed threads and deleted posts

Has been closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 09:00 AM

The crack down

Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 09:06 AM

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,fauxno
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 09:37 AM

I did not install the red print beneath my last post in "Closed threads & deleted posts (2)".

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Gizmo
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 09:44 AM

This will most likely be the first and last post I will put here -or on any closed thread #1 - 1million by the way it's going!

Shambles - I realise it has all been said before, and objectively I can see everyones point.

Just post your gripes once to the mods as a pm then if you must do it - here in public but once only - no more. The problem is, you're starting to alienate all those who may have had sympathy for your cause. You seem to be stuck in a loop, which, for some might be good entertainment, but becomes boring after awhile. Try to see this as a positive criticism and maybe learn to post differently.

As far as what I can see, the mods and clones have every right to stop anyone misbehaving on the forum. They are trying hard to keep the below line forum open and public. If you were chucked out of a bar in London, or a shop - it's the managers right and discretion to do so, and not for us to keep pester to find out why. They have the right to do so without question.

Sometimes I have to keep my children apart in a squabble - sometimes I have to appeal to the less trouble of them, just to stop the loop of "you did..." "no you did..."

In the same respect maybe you should do the same too. Stop repeating yourself, you do yourself a disfavour in doing so.

In the same context if you keep on at Joe, Max et al, then there only reply to you should be the list of ground rules to be applied by forum members. Then each time they are questioned - blue clicky to what has already been said.

Shambles, there are many, many causes out there which you would be better suited at campaigning against. Mudcats rules should not be one of them. You are wasting your time, resources and energy which if spent for more useful, world changing campaigns you would be seen as a hero, rather than an annoying poster.

Please read this for the constructive advice given, as I am not intending to dig at you or take sides as it were.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 09:54 AM

So attempts to make certain points are too repetitive but personal attacks are not?

If a rule is not enforced uniformly, does it have validity as a rule?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 10:35 AM

Just post your gripes once to the mods as a pm then if you must do it - here in public but once only - no more. The problem is, you're starting to alienate all those who may have had sympathy for your cause.

No that is not the problem at all. It is however what you are encouraged by our 'moderators' to see as the problem.

What you seem to have overlooked is why the same effort involved in trying to prevent my views from being posted is not simply put in to our 'moderators' addressing whatever 'gripes' are the problem?

You seem to have found the rather easy and obvious solution to you being irritated by reading my posts and as you won't be seeing any more of them - I may as well carry on and allow other posters to make the same choice as you - to read my views or not.

Anyone who really allows any personal irritation to alienate them from supporting the right of everyone to be seen to be given a fair crack - does not really understand how hard the struggle to ensure this has always had to be.

And I fear that they will only have themselves to blame when they wake up to find they have not only had this right taken away from them - but will have played an active role in this.

Thank you for your advice - which along with all the other unsolicited advice on how, what, and where I should post - will be noted. But my advice to you - for what it is worth is the following bit of unsolicted advice that was recently given to me on our forum...................

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

Or at least try to do this until those who do mind - are allowed to finally succeed in preventing you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 10:42 AM

Your posts, and your cut and pastes are all over the Mudcat Roger, your claim about restricted posting is a sham. Perhaps if you abandoned repetitious postings, and trying to tweak the noses of those who keep the site tidy, by posting dubious birthday threads, and went back to posting intelligent contributions in the music threads, you might find less critical opprobrium occurring
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 10:48 AM

Accusations of repetitiousness get repetitious, don't they, G-Man, even when accompanied by repetitious personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 10:49 AM

Your posts, and your cut and pastes are all over the Mudcat Roger, your claim about restricted posting is a sham.

Thread closed. Shambles started posting his complaints in another thread.
-Joe Offer-

I always thought that encouraging all poster to contribute to our forum was its whole point.

Perhaps we need an additional members only forum for the encouragment of the posting of this 'critical opprobrium'?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: jeffp
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:01 AM

Shambles has been asked to leave

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:36 PM

Then this thread should be closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 05:13 PM

From: Gizmo - PM
Date: 06 Jan 07 - 09:44 AM

This will most likely be the first and last post I will put here -or on any closed thread #1 - 1million by the way it's going!

Shambles - I realise it has all been said before, and objectively I can see everyones point.

Just post your gripes once to the mods as a pm then if you must do it - here in public but once only - no more.

Seeing the end result of sending a PM - that's the last time I will follow your advice.........

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Cluin
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 05:15 PM

Hoisted by another's petard... YOINK!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: skipy
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 05:32 PM

Just go!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 06:34 PM

Come on. I thought this guy was gone. Can't anyone do something about him once and for all? Or are you just going to have him keep laughing in your face?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,the doc
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 06:40 PM

Slowly walk away from your computer and deal with your demons elsewhere. You are obsessed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:15 PM

Let's see, on the day that Shambles is asked to leave he is able to post 10 times. My guess is that he really didn't get the message. Or, as usual, he's going to throw it in Mudcat's face.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:24 PM

He manages to capture some management edicts or announcements, for later cut and paste quotation, that would otherwise get away from some of us, given their capability of moving around or disappearing.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Slag
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 03:43 AM

I just had to LOOK. Oh my. Hey! You kow what? All this crapping, er I mean carpping, well, either way, all this "stuff" would sure help out the 85 billion post thread? That's probably been suggested more than once. Well, I will look no more.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,I was there in the middle man
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 04:29 AM

What are you doing over here, Slag, while your thread awaits you? Never mind, I have brought it to the top!

And where are you, IWTATBM? I don't know - do I have to do all this heavy lifting myself?

Come comrades. Let us do our duty on the 85 billion post thread, which is a much more worthy cause!

IWTITMM

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 04:49 AM

The thread Shambles has been asked to leave   has now been closed by persons and for reasons unknown.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 01:05 PM

In the closed thread, Max's withholding of permission to publicly berate a fellow human being is reminiscent of Brer Rabbit's request not to be thrown into the briar patch.

Not that permission ever seemed to be needed - but official permission to berate this fellow human being had already been given to our forum in the following.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:04 PM

Well, I used to give you equal treatment, Shambles - but you kept badgering me about that being repressive censorship.
So, you got what you asked for. Catspaw can say what he likes about you, until such time as you stop your incessant campaign against the way we do things here. You are not a nice person, Shambles. Do not expect to be treated nicely.
-Joe-

Which was included in the complaint that was ignored but for which I was then publicly asked to leave for making.

The message that seem to be coming across is that those who spend most of their time complaining about their fellow posters and blaming them, like the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - do not like to be complained about - no matter how poor an example they set.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 03:57 AM

What happened to the thread on hemorrhaging membership? Why is selective access blocking of guests being done today, even if a guest has initiated no personal attack nor done anything officially prohibited, malicious, or illegal? The fact remains, anonymity is allowed, and even most members are functionally anonymous due to the use of authored user names.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 04:41 AM

Our membership is hemorrhaging- any ideas (and all of its 225 posts) has been deleted by persons and for reasons unknown.

I think it was the post from Catspaw explaining why he thinks he should be seen to indulge himself in his ossessions, to be seen to compromise his 'friends' and openly encouraged by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to inflict on our forum any form of obscene personal abuse he wishes to - but still have some right and entitlement to judge and try and prevent others (who do not contribute such posts and some that follow his example) from posting what they wish.

That may have been the reason for that thread's deletion - or it may have been that it contained some sensible suggestions.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 08:10 AM

The "hemmoraging" thread is gone, not just closed? Pathetic. Mudcat is falling apart. Many members will be bitterly disappoiunted, but none will be more upset to see their toy in pieces than Max and Joe. Yet they've brought it on themselves.

Max, to be fair, probably has the intellect to give the cafe a Gordon Ramsay makeover, but seemingly he hasn't the time. Thus he has to depend on the hapless Joe, who doesn't know which way to turn.

Anyway, the loss of that "hemmoraging" thread is a bitter blow for me. It had in it a post from me that was one of the very few that has brought me PMs in support.

In a nutshell I had been remarking on the kind of personal abuse that Spaw is allowed to spew. The example I quoted was the choice piece of Spawspew which has already been quoted in this thread, in which Shambles was subjected to tirade of venomous abuse. Not only (I flew on) was Spaw allowed to do this, but he was positively encouraged to do so by the Mudcat moderator, Joe Offer. Again the relevant post from Joe is quoted higher in this thread. Yet at the same time as he was so successfully drawing out the worst in Spaw, St Joe was solemnly assuring the Mudcat community that personal abuse would not be tolerated.

Of course, the sense of justice in Mudcat's higher echelons is such that it was Shambles, not Spaw, who was asked to leave! What would a visitor to Mudcat, an innocent abroad, make of all this? Well such a visitor would be greeted by a chorus of sycophantic voices saying "Oh, you couldn't begin to understand, you poor newbie...." How very welcoming.

I don't suppose Joe and Spaw had much by way of answers to what I posted, so I guess they reckoned it was easiest just to delete the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 11:10 AM

I don't 'suppose' any answer would satisfy some of the complainers. Just how long and to what degree are forum moderators supposed to keep explaining, arguing and debating their decisions?

If every defense & explanation of a decision just leads to more acrimony and dissention, why bother? Joe and sometimes Max have explained many times what they wish to control, and how they'd like things to run....and Max has just stated that ideas are being worked on to deal with some of the problems. In the meantime, all the bickering, not only about the problems, but about HOW to bicker, have gotten way beyond hope of agreement.....and I have no doubt that if it continues in this thread, it will go too!

*shrug*...people have gotten pretty spoiled about just what is reasonable in an 'open' forum. There MUST be limits and control, even if a few see sinister plots behind it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 12:56 PM

BELOW IS THE EXACT MESSAGE I POSTED ON THE DELETED THREAD.
*****************************************************************************************************

I thought perhaps I should post here just to expand on Cluin's and Guest's and Fionn's posts above.

I have not been posting simply because that was what Max asked of ALL of us when he posted the "Shambles Has Been Asked to Leave" thread. No one including Jeff, Max, or Joe has communicated with me as to anything else. AND, yes, I had posted on New Year's Eve the following after someone asked why Spaw hadn't been censored:

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (2)
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 31 Dec 06 - 08:55 PM

Because the favoured poster is so lovable.

Ya' know Roger, the only reason I ever drop by here is just for fun and to take the piss out of you for no reason whatsoever. Well, I guess there is a reason...........I seem to annoy you and that's reason enough. You have been annoying this place for years. All your huffing and puffing don't mean a thing because there is only what is. At some point Max will take the piss out of you instead of me doing it. That might be a sad day because under the neurotic asshole persona, you're an otherwise intelligent being.

Maybe it will come to you in the new year though I doubt it. You're not saving Mudcat. It isn't yours to save. Back off and let Max take care of things in the best time frame that he and Jeff can. Make it a resolution for the new year huh? You've made all the points that you have to make and you can see that no one but you is too interested. "Our" forum, as you like to say, would be far better off for it. If you can't do that, then I'll be around just for the hell of it to screw with you. I'll post a lot of stupid, demeaning, and generally stupid, stuff to try and equal your stupid stuff.

Give it up Rog......Why waste the bandwidth? We can both stop now as the New Year arrives!!!!

I had not posted a word past this and when Max asked Roger to leave, I wasn't surprised. If you'll check back, for all of those posts some of you complain about and are so offended by (please grow up), there are also a considerable number like that one where I asked Roger to back off. Roger and I have both been here about the same length of time ('98 or so with a few months difference) and I remember well and often posted glowingly with words of admiration for his poetry and song.   But even in '99' he had begun to harp on his discontent with the 'Cat. At one point, amidst much fanfare he left. When he returned a few months later he began this crap with Max's decisions regarding the way the place worked.

He and I had some good fights back then but at one point we called a truce......and it held for a good while. Then he really got going on this bullshit "every word is precious" and that did me in. This is the internet. Our rights extend only as far as the site owner deems fitting. We all post at the pleasure and with the permission of the site owner on EVERY site for chrissakes. Max has let this go on because he's a good guy and likes to see things work out in the real world. I know of no other website that allows continual harping and complaining and generally berating words and attitudes as to the site administration. Most places would have ushered Roger to the door and kicked his ass off the planet.

Max isn't like that and now Roger has forced him into an untenable position. This was just a first step. Other things will change and happen and then other steps will be taken if Roger insists upon staying. That decision is still Roger's and if I were him, I'd take a break and think about it.   If you think Roger has some good points (personally I don't) then it might be good to keep in mind that Max DID NOT ask him to leave because of things he was saying. Most sites would, but Max didn't. Max asked him to go because he has been continually harping on the same crap for years. He has been given all the answers but because they aren't what Roger wants to hear, he keeps right on pissing and moaning. Enough is enough.

I just wanted to clarify Cluin's and the other posts a bit. I'll let my New Year's post stand for itself in its entirety. And btw, I have no idea where Mick is. If his first of the year has been anything like mine, he's been busy in the 3D world.

..........and fuck Florida.

Spaw
**********************************************************************************************************
THAT IS THE ENTIRETY OF THE POST.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 01:39 PM

There must be fair and reasonable controls, Bill--and that is the issue here--there is a lot of feeling that the controls were slow to be introduced, that they are not clearly defined, that they are insufficient to the problems that they were supposed to deal with, and have been arbitrarily, and self-servingly applied--

Maybe these concerns are unjustified, but when reasonably calm "open" discussions are closed and deleted because the moderators are tired of hearing them, it mitigates to the other side--

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 01:40 PM

noted for the record. Now, let's NO ONE say any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 01:59 PM

(yep, M.Ted...when the inmates have had too much freedom to run about the asylum, they usually make a bigger mess that has to be cleaned up than if they were more tightly controlled from the beginning. Max just said that they're out shopping for big mop buckets and better locks for the doors. I will wait & see what they find)

Max said YEARS ago that he didn't like having to police the place and hoped sense would prevail....but that was before Google 'found' us and many folks with little interest in music wandered in.

Go look ABOVE the line, people...there's new videos from kytrad up there!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 02:14 PM

"Let's no one say more"--as you say, Bill, but my thoughts are as free as wind oer the ocean--

As to "above the line" well, there hasn't been much effort made to facilitate "above the line" discussions--given that the "inmates" are habitual users of folk music, a decent activities director could keep them busy--

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 03:30 PM

There were many worthwhile posts in the "hemorrhaging" thread, but it was taken over by combative posts in the last day. As indicated in the thread, the Forum WAS hemorrhaging, and something had to be done. There was a general uproar in the Forum over the last couple days, and I had to take some drastic measures to calm things down. I'll try to restore what I can of the "hemorrhaging" thread when I get time, but I don't have time today.

Yes, I'm sure some of you won't agree with the way I handled the situation, but such is life.

I see forum messages here and there, questioning why Mudcat "allowed" a certain message and deleted another. We don't "allow" any messages - we allow posting, and we don't do full review of all messages to determine if they are suitable or not. If we see messages or threads that are causing a problem, we deal with them. If I receive e-mails or personal messages complaining about a specific message, I review the message and make a determination - and I ordinarily repond directly to the person who made the complaint. I do not feel bound to respond to complaints (particularly anonymous complaints) that are posted in the Forum or the Help Forum. If you have a complaint, contact me directly by personal message or by e-mail. My e-mail address is [e-mail].

And, for the record - from now on, anonymous posting will be reviewed and controlled. We've had far too many problems with anonymous posters. If you want to post, use a consistent name.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Cruiser
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 03:35 PM

"And, for the record - from now on, anonymous posting will be watched and controlled. We've had far too many problems with anonymous posters. If you want to post, use a consistent name."

Very good decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 03:38 PM

It's been looking good all day today Joe. A noticeably more sensible and balanced set of contributions.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 04:23 PM

This thread deletion seems to have escalated the conflict to another area-- I just opened an old thread that had been resurrected(which causes its own peculiar sort of problems, anyway) only to discover that it had been loaded down with porn links. A retaliation, I am sure, for the deletion of the "hemorrhaging" thread--

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 04:29 PM

And the pig got up and slowly walked away!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 04:34 PM

..as well he should have...*grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,thread periscope
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 05:50 PM

What happened to the thread "What they did to Marie Antoinette"?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Cluin
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 06:22 PM

It's there, GUEST thread periscope. It just fell off the bottom. Access it here.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 06:28 PM

I had not posted a word past this and when Max asked Roger to leave, I wasn't surprised. If you'll check back, for all of those posts some of you complain about and are so offended by (please grow up), there are also a considerable number like that one where I asked Roger to back off.

You of all posters are seriously asking for other posters to grow up?

You who admits to indulging in the most childish name-calling, scatological refences and foul personal abuse and inflicting this publicly on our forum to intentionally try to upset and annoy one poster?

I think there is an internet word for someone who does this? Not sure if there is an internet word for one who is seen to be encouraged by a site's moderators to do this. From now on - perhaps this creature will be known as a Catspaw - in your dubuous honour?

Why do you think you should be the only poster seen to be encouraged to indulge in such posting free from censure?

And why do you think you have some right to try and prevent others from posting their views and to incite others to drive such posters away?

Why after setting this example and seeing the result - do you have the conceit to assume to advise others how to conduct themselves?

Do you really think anyone on our forum should take any notice of what you tell them to do or not do?

You are fortunate enough for some reason to have special treatment from the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team which takes the very opposite form to the restrictions currently imposed on my posting.

So as you are seen to be so special and privileged out of all on our forum - why cannot you just be seen to be setting the example of ignoring any views that are not to your tastes?

Something that my friend Mick (after many years of failure) seems to have finally managed - to his great credit but a course that your huge ego just does not seem to allow you to take.

And if you are incapable of following Mick's new example - perhaps you could do all the posters to this forum a great big favour and concentrate on posting the other sites which you publicly extol the virtues of and leave poster here free from your foolishness.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 09:04 PM

How does a thread leapfrog threads beneath it in its descent down and off the page?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 09:07 PM

The same way you brought this one to the top. Post!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 09:17 PM

Beats me, then.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 09:21 PM

That would just mean other threads are getting more action-- it's them coming up, more than Marie going down.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: jeffp
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 10:13 PM

Actually, Max's thread said, "Shambles has been asked to leave." Verbatim quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: jeffp
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 11:14 PM

if

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 02:15 AM

The following was not inserted as a editing comment - so our forum will have to judge for themselves if this is only the poster's personal - view or something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Posting with Civility
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 02:09 PM

I'll say it again: if you have been posting anonymously, it is time for you to choose a user name. Registration is not required - but anonymous posting (while possible) is not permitted.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 03:24 AM

I take it that our forum is being informed by this official sounding pronouncement, that it now the end for posting, judgement, 'silent deletion' and all forms of imposed editing action by our anonymous moderators.

Do I also take it that our forum is being informed that all forms of imposed editing action will always be recorded in editing comments and that the use of editing comments will be limited to only where some form of imposed editing action has taken place?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 04:22 AM

our forum will have to judge for themselves if this is only the poster's personal - view or something else.

No need to guess, Shambles. If you read what you quote you should see the words "I'll say it again". This is an indication that it has first been stated officially somewhere else.

Here is the original:

From now on, anonymous posting will be watched and controlled. We've had far too many problems with anonymous posters. If you want to post, use a consistent name. We're not requiring registration, although we certainly prefer that. You may certainly use a pseudonym as a user name, but please use that same name every time you post.

-Joe Offer-

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 12:17 PM

So Max can tell Shambles that he is being asked to leave but then does nothing about making sure that he leaves but Guests who may have something worthwhile to say but don't feel like using a name won't be allowed to post.

That makes sense. Leave the posting to those who complain and insult management but edit supporters of the site who don't want to assume a fake identity.

---

The Shambles complaint messages have been more-or-less confined to one thread at a time for several months now. Most posts of GUESTS who refuse to use a name are now being deleted, whether the posts are harmful or innocuous. If you don't want to be deleted, all you have to do is use a consistent name.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 12:17 PM

Some of the posts below are somewhat out of context due to the deletion of certain posts made near to them in time.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 12:44 PM

"Some of the posts below are somewhat out of context due to the deletion of certain posts made near to them in time."

point noted...we'll live with it somehow...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 01:13 PM

I've never met anyone yet who was fully informed. And I don't expect to. This whole discussion is a tempest in a very tiny teapot, but it's fun to check in and read it now and then when one simply has nothing else to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 01:42 PM

OK, so the GUEST post was deleted and makes me look foolish. I can handle that. It was foreshadowed (but by a previous GUEST post which may also be deleted making me look more foolish still. At least Bill D. copied and pasted it, maybe I can avoid looking the complete idiot).

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 01:46 PM

Don't worry, K.B. A week from now no one will remember. Hell, maybe even a couple of days from now. I mean, can you see anyone discussing this thread someday in a class devoted to the history of western civilization?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 01:50 PM

Not only was the GUEST post deleted but my response was deleted which makes my concern look doubly foolish.

Trust me when I say I will not lose any sleep over this. I could spend all day trying to look as foolish as possible and still wouldn't measure up to some posts I see on this site (this is not a pot shot at you Shambles, just a general observation).

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 02:22 PM

History 306: The role of "Closed threads & deleted posts (3)" in Western Civilization.

I hope this isn't offered at 7:30 AM. I never did too well in those classes, avoided them as much as possible. I tried to take classes that started at 10:30 or later.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: M.Ted
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 03:21 PM

I don't know about that, Little Hawk--"The Taming of the Internet" would fill up a good size lecture hall almost anywhere you'd want to go, and will undoubtably be the theme of a good many research papers, books, and the like for many years to come--

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,slingbelikedavid's
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 03:24 PM

How can the tone of discourse improve around here if initial personal attacks and supporting posts are allowed to stand while counters by guests are deleted?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: M.Ted
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 03:31 PM

I was thinking about deleting the counter in my kitchen, and perhaps replacing it with one of those granite things, but due to the increase of weight on the cabinets, it would not stand without supporting posts----

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 03:33 PM

If you took out the counters where would you slice your veggies?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 03:42 PM

so what happens to well written erudite posts that positively and constuctively enhance a thread,
but were inadvertently posted as 'GUEST' due to cookie problems,
or momentary oversight by the poster..?

or is it that under this new apparently 'zero tolerance' regime
everything posted by 'GUEST' is automatically' deleted
no matter what the quality of writing,
amount of time spent laboured to write a good creative contribution.. etc..

??????

---

If you use a consistent poster name, it won't be a problem, will it?
Still, if it appears to be an honest omission, we'll let the message go undeleted. It's quite clear you intended to be anonymous in this message, but I'll leave it undeleted.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bert
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 04:29 PM

Good point GUEST.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 04:49 PM

And what happens to my erudite posts that positively and constructively would enhance a thread if I had not mistakenly hit the "back" button instead of the "submit" button? They cannot even be restored, they are lost to the world forever. Sniff.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 05:07 PM

If you use a consistent poster name, it won't be a problem, will it?
Still, if it appears to be an honest omission, we'll let the message go undeleted. It's quite clear you intended to be anonymous in this message, but I'll leave it undeleted.
-Joe Offer-

If it appears to who?

How does the who decide?

How can anyone be sure what anyone else's intention is?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 05:10 PM

Wolfgang...what browser are you using? In my browser(s) Opera & Firefox, typed messages stay...even if I go forward or back...or even do a search to 'enlighten' my planned post. They do not disappear until I close the browser. Right now, I can read the 'original' of every post I've typed since I last opened the browser.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: skipy
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 05:10 PM

Leave it! starve him of the attention, with no blood supply he will curl up & die & then drop off, like a pair of sheeps bollocks!
Then, he can regroup, put his sensible head on & come back & be welcome, me thinks!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,name #?
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 05:17 PM

The same visitor records used to facilitate blocking access by certain guests could, in most instances, be used to determine which members post at times without a registered user name. Where are the negative sanctions against members who post without a registered user name? Do their posts get deleted?

---

As a matter of fact, I have taken action against them a few times - but I can communicate with them privately, so it isn't so obvious. Very few registered Mudcatters go anonymous to cause problems, however.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: M.Ted
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:12 AM

The veggie slicing would take place on the new black granite counters that I installed in place of the deleted ones--excepting that they needed posts, and turned out to be way more expensive than I thought--

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: JennyO
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 03:19 AM

I'd like to delete all the counters in my kitchen. Some of them are big square tiles, and the grout between them is a real dirt trap. I bleach them a lot, and then they seem a little cleaner. The other one is a wooden one, supposedly at a height to sit at, but too high - definitely a home-grown job. One end is "supported" by a large thick POST, which, on closer inspection, turned out to be a long tube made of CARDBOARD. Needless to say, we don't lean on it too hard. I'd like to delete that too. Not much value in a long post with nothing in it, I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 05:43 AM

You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post (where no editing action did in fact take place) and did not refresh the thread.

The Shambles complaint messages have been more-or-less confined to one thread at a time for several months now. Most posts of GUESTS who refuse to use a name are now being deleted, whether the posts are harmful or innocuous. If you don't want to be deleted, all you have to do is use a consistent name.
-Joe Offer-

And if you don't want to be deleted and you don't wish to use a consistent name and you still wish to post only to judge and abuse your fellow posters - then become an anonymous 'moderator'.

Then you can not only post and complain anywhere and about who you wish - you can do this both conventional posts which refresh the thread or in inserted red editing comments which do not.

And you can 'silently delete' the posts of others. And be allowed to pretend that all this online bullying is being done to enable free and open discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

When the word 'complaints' is used by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - it now appears to mean any freely expressed view that he does not agree with.

And for which 'crime' the poster concerned will be seen to be openly abused by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team, certain other favoured posters will be seen to be encouraged by him to post the most offensive abuse and then site's owner will then be seen to ignore a formal complaint made about this and them start a thread publicly stating that the complaining posters has been asked to leave.

Perhaps it is time for all posters to address the reality of this sad situation (hopefully in this thread- rather than be expected to continue to pretend that our forum has not become what it clearly has?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: skipy
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 05:50 AM

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bert
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 12:44 PM

JennyO, clean out the grout and redo it. Then seal it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:03 PM

Guest Joe decides. Simple, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:07 PM

So what you are saying is that the people who run the site are the ones making decisions about how it will be run. I get it now.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: jeffp
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:31 PM

Odd concept, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:48 PM

.. and people who outwear their welcome aren't welcome..

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 02:09 PM

Only the 'nice people' are now welcome and get to be treated nicely.

You can tell those who consider themselves to be the 'nice people' as they are the ones who are seen to gang up to prevent others from posting their views and are now openly encouraged to post foul abuse and to judge the worth of others and to try to drive them away.

And in this distorted reality - the paragon of virtue who is seen to be the worst of these offenders who is openly encouraged to set the very worst example of posting - seems to viewed as the very best of these 'nice people'.

There are still some really nice people who still post to our forum - it is a shame that theirs is not the example that gets followed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: skipy
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 02:12 PM

100, Bye,
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 02:32 PM

Shambles, good day to you. I think you are a nice person.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Cluin
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 03:19 PM

When people see a person continually banging their head bloody against a brick wall, it's just human nature to implore them to stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: number 6
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 03:55 PM

Hey Shambles!

"And Ol' Man River, he just keeps rollin' along
He must know somepin', but he don't say nothin'
He just keeps rollin', he keeps on rollin' along"

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Wesley S
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 04:36 PM

Y'know "oft banned" - I threw a party many years ago and one of the guests insisted on talking about his ideas about the Kennedy assassination. He was sure that Oswald didn't act alone. He even followed people from room to room when folks tried to get away from him. We asked him to change the subject. He wouldn't. So I asked him to leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 04:36 PM

I agree. But the tone of the attacks against Shambles has changed because people have to post under their names or use a consistent 'guest name' and personal attacks are being deleted--or so it said somewhere on this site. So, maybe that will help things along. I would expect the same admonishments given to the folks here have also been internalized by the clones. So, maybe a brighter day is ahead. Time will tell.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,Mark Lane
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:16 PM

Do you remember anything else that happened at that party, WesleyS? Mustn't rush to judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Cluin
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:28 PM

Why would we need a metaphor for a metaphor?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: number 6
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:37 PM

How about a simile?

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Cluin
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 11:42 PM

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 09:36 AM

When people see a person continually banging their head bloody against a brick wall, it's just human nature to implore them to stop.

Hmmm?

Catspaw and co have been banging their heads against a brick wall for many years - in an obvously vain attempt to control what others choose to post.

Are they seen to be implored to stop (to any great extent) - or are their pointless actions seen to be encouraged?

And the justification provided for these online bullying and 'fun' attempts is supposed to be to prevent our forum from being bored by discussions on the same subject.

In the process our forum is littered with foul language, needless personal judgements about a poster's worth, name-calling and abuse.

Perhaps it is simply better to just encourage the reality that posters and 'moderators' only have any control over their own posting and if the posts of others are not to their taste - to simply ignore them?

It is human nature to do many things - and is used as an excuse by many to do what they want but are otherwise inhibited from doing.

A good example is rape by (some) soldiers in wartime. You can excuse this as being human nature - as it sadly is.

But they are many selfless acts of bravery and kindness undertaken by (some) soldiers in the same situations.

I like to take some comfort in the fact that this is also human nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 02:53 PM

What prize awaits he who proves to be most stubborn in the standoff?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: nutty
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 03:15 PM

There's an awful feeling of 'deja vu' about this thread.

Serves me right for opening it, I guess

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,back
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:05 PM

Deletions within a thread, when done without an editor's note, now often leave responding statements without a full context, and as a result some responding statements can seem rather incoherent. Those who often browse here might know about the silent deletion practice, but new visitors and those opening a web search result might not.

---

Noted. We've aways considered this when we edit or delete, and we post explanations when we think they will be useful - it depends on a number of factors.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bert
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 06:04 PM

And it's going to get worse GUEST,back, now that anonymous postings are being deleted.

I don't know how many we have lost so far, but Mudcat sure seems to have been dull the last few days.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 07:01 PM

That's because Chongo has work and Shane is in the slammer. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:41 PM

dull? Why, Bert...I suppose you'd consider getting out of Bagdhad 'dull'. I thought it seemed rather happily nice & quiet.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Alba
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 09:11 PM

Dull...eh....as in it has been pleasant rather than hostile and nasty!

If this is the case then all I have to say is......

The duller the better!! :)

.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 09:52 PM

Me too.

*Smiles*

As long as all posters on our forum are all seen to be of a like mind (or at least appear to) - and are all seen to support each other and post together to abuse those who are not - that all that would seem to matter now.

A forum that is dull, cowering, exclusive and inhibited is good?

It is now clear that our 'moderators' intentions were never to end conflict - just to be seen to win it.

At any cost.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:32 PM

"It is now clear that our 'moderators' intentions were never to end conflict - just to be seen to win it.

At any cost."

Sounds like American foreign policy. (grin) Or...truth be told...any warlike power's foreign policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 03:00 AM

Thread #19340   Message #1931671
Posted By: Joe Offer
09-Jan-07 - 03:36 PM
Thread Name: Mudcat FAQ - Newcomer's Guide
Subject: Anonymous Posting

From now on, anonymous posting will be watched and controlled. We've had far too many problems with anonymous posters. If you want to post, use a consistent name. We're not requiring registration, although we certainly prefer that. You may certainly use a pseudonym as a user name, but please use that same name every time you post.

-Joe Offer-

Are our anonymous 'moderators' (who have caused more than their share of problems) also going to always have to use their own posting name?

Is this 'crackdown' also to see the end of posts ('silent deletions' and all other forms of imposed editing actions) from them using additional names like 'Anonymous Clone', Mudelf, Fat Clone etc?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 05:29 PM

"From now on, anonymous posting will be watched and controlled. We've had far too many problems with anonymous posters. If you want to post, use a consistent name. We're not requiring registration, although we certainly prefer that. You may certainly use a pseudonym as a user name, but please use that same name every time you post."

Dep't of Mudcat Security

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 05:41 PM

Some of us have seen the quoted passage. Being watched and controlled is not the same as being deleted totally. Since the crackdown began, there have been numerous posts, even thread-starting posts, above the line that were submitted without a user name. A definitive statement on the subject would be helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 05:49 PM

Sorry, unnamed Guest. The policy has been stated - very clearly and very often. It's in the FAQ. It's in the Help Forum. It's in several recent threads where anonymous Guests have been posting. Where else should the policy be stated?
Oh, and there's a blank space where you're supposed to put your name in the message posting box. If you post without a name, you're taking a risk of deletion - above or below the line.
If you violate our policies, you may suffer appropriate consequences. The consequences will vary according to the situation. These consequences are NOT punishments - they are measures we take to keep the peace. We do what we need to do to keep things under control, and try to avoid doing more editing than we need to. We have had a serious problem with heavy posting by unnamed Guests this week, so our control measures have naturally been heavier.
Some say that's inconsistency, but I disagree. We do what we need to do to keep the peace. If things are peaceful, we don't do much. They haven't been peaceful lately.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 06:14 PM

I'd like a policy that said something about complaints being PM'd or e-mailed to Max, and if he doesn't answer or give the answer a person wants, no whining. Post in the Help Forum to report brokent things. No more threads to complain about the way Max wants Mudcat to be.

The way Mudcat is run is the main excuse for trolling here. There doesn't seem to be a positive goal intended, these threads only serve to piss people off and attract more trolls. I've never understood why these serial bitch-about-Mudcat threads are allowed to persist here.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 06:23 PM

I know of no other forum that allows it Jeri. But Max has always been interested in seeing things work out on their own. Problem is that the 'Cat has grown far beyond those proportions where that kind of thing is always possible. These kinds of threads and trolls and the postings of Shambles wouldn't last 10 minutes on most forums. It is to Max's credit he has allowed it at all. I think the day draws near when he may not.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 06:42 PM

I'd certainly agree with that, Spaw and Jeri. There's no way to satisfy everybody with our editing, and some people will NEVER be satisfied and will always complain. There's no way to have a fair and open discussion of editing policy, because the trolls will always jump in and make the editors look like big, mean, repressive ogres.

Perhaps it's time to take Mudcat editing policy out of the general forum discussion, and ask people to send ideas or complaints directly to Max, Jeff, or Joe. Every one of these threads is a downer.

Opinions?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 06:49 PM

Invitees who express concerns about a forum are not trolls.

Learning about moderated forums is best achieved by navigating to them and studying them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 07:02 PM

An unnamed Guest above writes:
"Invitees who express concerns about a forum are not trolls.

Learning about moderated forums is best achieved by navigating to them and studying them."

Well Guest.....Navigate yourself over to the message boards at this site and see how many threads you an find berating the admin or ownership of the site. Why not sign up and try to bust some chops over there? Let me know how you do.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 07:09 PM

I suspect Max hopes people would learn, but we've got some persistant arguers and an endless procession of newbies, some of whom are probably attracted by the trollery. We've developed a culture of fighting here, and it's like a feeding frenzy - the blood smell only attracts more.

It would save you, Joe, from having to read so many GUEST posts to see who's trolling and who isn't, if all complaints about the way the forum is run had to be sent directly to Max or Jeff. Editing, spam and other established-policy things are fine the way they are, except for opinions being inserted into posts and unhelpful posts in the Help forum.

I'd be all for zapping threads like this on sight, but any policy change of this magnitude should come from Max. I may disagree, but I have a feeling he might not want to do this, and it's his ball of wax.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 07:14 PM

I agree with Jeri for what it's worth.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 07:27 PM

It's not like either the 'crackdown' or the debate over administration policies is a new thing. We've been at it for YEARS..partially because Max tried to allow Mudcat to be more 'open' than most forums....inevitably, the accusations about 'cliques' and 'favoritism' and 'editing' arise....some from a couple of picky members, but many from drop-ins who couldn't care less about music above the line. If it IS mostly drop-ins, why should we tolerate them?...and if it is members logging out to bitch, shame on them!

The last couple of days HAVE been a bit quieter & more peacful....and I like it. We can still have debates about interesting subjects, but the tenor of them really needs to be moderated, and debates about how to debate and whether the moderators should really moderate are getting beyond tedious!

My vote, it should be obvious, is for continuing tight control over provocative posts...especially from those who feel no obligation to use a name.

Let's have fun, be silly, argue a bit when it is relevant....but let's end the META-argument over how to run the place!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 08:15 PM

The way Mudcat is run is the main excuse for trolling here. There doesn't seem to be a positive goal intended, these threads only serve to piss people off and attract more trolls. I've never understood why these serial bitch-about-Mudcat threads are allowed to persist here.

The only problem IS the way our forum has been stolen by a few who have made a complete mess of it.

If it wasn't such a mess - those few that are responsible would not need to fear discussion of this mess and call for threads like this one to be prevented.

That these few do not wish anyone else to discuss it - rather demonstrates the mess they have made - and how embarrassed they become when the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team attempts to justify yet more restrictions about what they will allow to be posted and by whom.

This in his vain attenpt to chase and control the shadows that cannot do any real harm and can be safely ignored.

And to which pointless crusade - all that is fine and different about our forum and what has made it special is seen to be sacrificed.

These threads are about the only subject that all posters to our forum have in common. So why wouldn't all posters wish to have their say?

Our 'moderators' being seen to keep on complaining about and closing threads like these is the cause of most of the frustration. It is a subject that should be able to be discussed on our forum like any other.

If our 'moderators' actually addressed more than just the concerns of those noisy few - rather then being seen to judge and try to prevent any contrary views from being expressed and discussed in such threads - our forum would not perhaps be in the mess that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team tell us it is - in his 'for the record' statement.

When all 'moderators' are known and all imposed actions are recorded - posters and 'moderators' will have some protection.   
   
Not being permitted to talk about the mess - will not make the mess go away and being so secretive and precious - will only confirm in some posters eyes - that there is something to hide.

If there is not - what harm can there be in being see to operate openly? This is after all a forum on a website - not the FBI.

You may not think this when our 'moderators' refer to them being under attack and use terms like hijacking..............

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 08:22 PM

Serious question, Roger: why do you believe Max asked you to leave?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Cluin
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 08:27 PM

If I was in charge, I'd delete all BS threads 30 days after inception, no exceptions. It would speed up searches and clean up space on the server and maybe speed up the connection here. Also less threads to be resurrected by the spammers.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: skipy
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 08:55 PM

Sham, why not visit a hair salon owned by a friend of mine it is called " Curl up & dye"!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 09:42 PM

I expect that if someone had told a VIP to 'curl up and dye'--even if very thinly disguised as humoUr--the post would be deleted. Hang in Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: number 6
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 11:30 PM

If I was in charge ..... well, I'm not, so this is the way it is.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 03:00 AM

Serious question, Roger: why do you believe Max asked you to leave?

Because although I have broken no rules and done nothing but set an example of trying to post my honest views to a forum set up for such a purpose - he felt he had no choice but to been seen to try do something to appease the (small but noisy) constantly complaining mob.

When it was this mob and the reasons why it was seen to be so publicly stirred-up that remains the problem.

Serious question to you:

Why do you believe that as a result of my complaint that Max did not ask both Joe and Catspaw to leave?

For many posters would judge the grounds for my (ignored) complaint as proven.

Wouldn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 04:05 AM

If there is not - what harm can there be in being see to operate openly? This is after all a forum on a website - not the FBI.

You may not think this when our 'moderators' refer to them being under attack and use terms like hijacking..............


News From Max on Nov-17-2006

The Mudcat is under attack. We blocked the spammers last week from posting, so now those same people are hammering the site until the web server crashes, over and over again. We're working on a technical way to defend ourselves. Stay patient

Perhaps it would be a better example to set if the impression was not given of our forum as being in constant state of warfare and individual posters were not seen to be singled out for public censure by our 'moderators' in this conflict?

And who are seen to openly encourage from certain favoured posters - the sort of posting of foul personal abuse that our forum is assured by our 'moderators' that they are there (some of them anonymously) to protect all posters from?

Reasonably worded and sensible suggestions do not become 'attacks' or 'hijacking' simply because our 'modertors' may not agree with them.

And they do not become this - and at the same time - an excuse to publicly abuse and bully posters - when they are ignored and may have be repeated to enable our forum to discuss them.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 04:17 AM

Shambles, how can you, in all conscience, try & switch the fact of attacks on the Mudcat, around to the topic of attacks on YOU?

Thats like saying if people stopped 'attacking' (or disagreeing with you, even) that the attacks against the Mudcat would stop.....which patently is nonsense (unless you know something about their source, which I am happy to presume you don't?)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 06:29 AM

My disagreeing with the views of any other poster in a discussion on our forum is not any form of attack on The Mudcat or any individual.

Disagreement with my views or the views of any other is NOT any form of attack.

All forms of attempts to restrict, prevent or inhibit any individual poster from expressing their views with the stated intention of driving them away. And this being indulged in and being seen to be publicly encouraged from a site's moderators - could very possbly be described as something else.

And something that has very little to do with a discussion forum.

If our 'moderators' would only show a different example than the one current shown towards posters - our forum may then follow this example as eagerly as many seem to follow the current one.

If a different example is not tried - how can anyone be sure that it would not work?

One thing is for sure - the current example has plainly not worked.

Even if the hostilty was not seen to be emanating from the example shown by our 'moderators' - it would be better for them not to be seen to so readlly adopt the same tactics and attitude (like being abusive and anonymous) as shown by the 'shadows' they vainly chase and try to bring under their control.

For now - the so-called cure is much more damaging that the so-called problem ever was.

For if all 'attacks' on our forum are now judged to be wrong - they are surely wrong whoever is doing the 'attacking' (or judging)?

Forums are to enable you to freely express your views, for them to be discussed and to enable you to listen to the views of others.

Judgements of the worth of the individual who express these views are for gossip in private or to made in courts by those qualified to do so and hopefully after a fair hearing.

Confusing a forum with a court and with a private gossip shop and using this one place for all these purposes and encouraging everyone to pretend otherwise - was only likely to end in bullying and tears.

Unless some reality is finally recognised and encouraged by example.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 11:28 AM

"Why do you believe that as a result of my complaint that Max did not ask both Joe and Catspaw to leave?"

I believe Max didn't carry out your instructions because:

You've been asked to leave and you refuse. You disrepect Max. I expect he knew you weren't capable of leaving or ending your crusade even if you wanted to, but I expect he felt he needed to give you a chance to do the right thing.

You have a long history of complaining about inconsequential things. Control issues, probably.

Max understands Catspaw. Spaw posts with a certain style of humor which you don't understand, and he doesn't bite a poor pet peeve and and hold on like a rabid bulldog on crack, with blood and foamy saliva dripping all over the path of the poor, severely impaired marauder.

Joe just tries too hard and gets frustrated. I think he's into redemption. Maybe it's a religious thing. I think it might be fun if Joe and Catspaw swapped personalities for a couple days.

Max is afraid of Catspaw, who has threatened to kick him in the balls on serveral occasions. I mean, if you take his posting toward you literally, you have to also see this threat to do bodily harm to Max as literal, right?

And the number one reason? Because it's just stupid.
Max has never asked anyone to leave because... no, I don't think Max has ever asked anyone to leave before you.
Max has never done anything here just because someone asked him to. Max listens, weighs suggestions, ignores attempted pressuring and decides what he thinks is right, and Max does it.

True, action might come a couple years later, but other than real life coming first, I think he knows one decision will affect many other things, like butterfly wings. We all may want him to 'get on with it', but if there's one thing I've learned about Max over the years (which frustrates some to no end), it's that Max will not be manipulated. He will not be pushed. I get frustrated when 'fixes' to 'problems' don't happen fast enough, but I respect him immensly, partly because he can't be pushed to act immediately. Jeez... maybe I ought to write him in for President in the next US election.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:22 PM

Roger, I stopped responding to your posts some time ago, but I want to respond to this one. Do you actually believe that you have done nothing, have broken no rules and that you have been asked to leave anyway? Why on earth would Max do that if you are so innocent?
The real problem is obvious to me, you don't know why because you don't WANT to know! You have been told time and time again and you simply don't hear. You keep coming back with the same old tired retread posts. If you want to see the real enemy, look in the mirror.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:43 PM

Damn, damn, damn - I had resolved not to poke a stick into this wasps' nest, but...

I think it might be fun if Joe and Catspaw swapped personalities for a couple days.
That's too good an aside to let drop. Just picture it... Joe lighting his farts and turning the air blue enough to make the nuns blush, and Spaw being the gentle voice of reason. Heck, you could sell tickets!

Sorry Shambles old chap, I interrupted the bellyache. Carry on...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 01:57 PM

Don't tell him to carry on, he will!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:18 PM

If you want to see the real enemy, look in the mirror.

Kendall - these are words posted on a discussion - we are not at war - there is no enemy.

And no I have broken no rules. If you can can find some rules that I have broken (and which others have not) and which require me alone to stop posting - then please tell us what they are?

You have often posted - and truly seem to believe - that our 'moderators' are there to protect us from delete abusive personal attacks and that you support this.

Could you tell us why Catspaw's posts containing only this, are not deleted but now seen to be openly encouraged by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - when other poster who have indulged in this are seen to be banned?

And why I am currently under special posting restrictions and asked to leave - when I have never indulged in such things and never responded in kind to the many I have been encouraged to be subjected to?

What message is being given by so-called rules that are seen to be so selectively imposed? If they are to be respected - should not any rules be seen to apply to every poster equally?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:50 PM

Like I said...you just don't listen.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:54 PM

Why is the following post allowed to remain?

"Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: skipy - PM
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 08:55 PM

Sham, why not visit a hair salon owned by a friend of mine it is called " Curl up & dye"!
Skipy"

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 03:09 PM

It's pretty close to the edge, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 03:17 PM

Max is afraid of Catspaw, who has threatened to kick him in the balls on serveral occasions. I mean, if you take his posting toward you literally, you have to also see this threat to do bodily harm to Max as literal, right?

Wrong.

For you know of course that the harm is done to our forum by the double standard of not only being seen to allow such foul and negatively intended posts by Catspaw to remain- but being seen to openly encourage such posts when at the same time other posters have been banned for posting equally offensive personal abuse.

Catspaw's scatological insults and sexual references are inflicted on our forum with the admitted intention of trying to wind-up upset other posters to the extent that they are driven away (and I have no doubt that he succeeds in doing just this with some posters).

So why are you trying to excuse both this posting and its encouragement by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to our forum? Is it the best example to set - if you are really asking to be seen serious about ending conflict?

Is it not the very flaming and trolling that is so condemned and which you as 'moderators' are supposed to be there to protect posters from?

Shamby-Pamby what is your problem man? Every swingin' dick in the joint has prettty much told you to get bent but you can't take "Fuck You" for an answer! Let me repeat for your benefit.....FUCK YOU!.....and the horse you rode in on. Matter of fact, you need to notice that your horse was killed by the last windmill you failed to topple but a broke-dick fanook like yourself probably beats animals. Matter of fact we DID see that from you before didn't we? Why not drop this sillyass vendetta against Max? You DO relaize that it is Max you're attacking here don't you? Probably not.....what a fuckin' mook............
Catspaw

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts.
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:04 PM

Well, I used to give you equal treatment, Shambles - but you kept badgering me about that being repressive censorship.
So, you got what you asked for. Catspaw can say what he likes about you, until such time as you stop your incessant campaign against the way we do things here. You are not a nice person, Shambles. Do not expect to be treated nicely.
-Joe-

Shambles has been asked to leave

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 03:46 PM

Subject: RE: Well, Well, Surprise?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03-Jan-07 - 02:31 AM

Clinton was blocked. He attacked another Mudcatter once too often. He can come back, on probation, if he contacts me by e-mail and asks. So far, he hasn't asked.
And the "Where's Clinton" thread was deleted because we don't allow threads that are critical of individual Mudcatters. Sorry, kids, but we're cracking down on nastiness around here. If you don't like it, try being nice for a change - or at least have the guts to post your name when you feel like being nasty. I gotta credit Clinton for that - at least he didn't hide his identity.
-Joe Offer-

As demonstrated - what 'we don't allow' is a bit selective - whoever 'we' is. And whoever this 'we' does refer to when used in this context - it sadly no longer refers to all of us.

Perhaps this 'them and us' concept explains the siege mentality demonstrated by the use by our 'moderators' - and their few vocal supporters - of all the metaphors of warfare?

When editing action being imposed or not is seen to depend on whether the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team publicly judges the poster to be a nice person it should not perhaps be defended as 'moderation' until it is seen to apply to all posters equally?   

Am I the only one who has difficulty in working out the criteria used by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to judge who is a nice person (to be treated nicely) and who is not?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 03:57 PM

Yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Sorcha
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 03:58 PM

Nope. You aren't. Some of us just left quietly. Bye again. Back to the cellar.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 04:39 PM

"Am I the only one who has difficulty in working out the criteria used by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to judge who is a nice person (to be treated nicely) and who is not?"

While I disagree with the terminology I agree with the sentiment. That post I questioned was allowed to stay because none of the clones who read it care that you get dissed on this forum. It serves a purpose for some of them, I'm sure. THEY didn't say it. Just left it. Same thing I think. As to the rule Joe laid out: It boils down to 'be nice'. Define nice? Who the fuck knows. Guess it depends on who likes whom.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: skipy
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 04:56 PM

Peace you are right, I was bang out of order to say what I did, the result of going on the cat with too much beer in me.
Sham, sorry, that was wrong of me, I still think you should let it go and leave for a while. Please accept my sincere apologies.
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 05:14 PM

Hey, skipy, hope you're keeping well. Please understand that what I posted abpout your post was not aimed at you. I thought it was a clever post. But as you pointed out, it was OTT, and with ol' Shambles always getting slagged by clones and friends of clones, I figured the post should have been deleted. Hell, you and I are the only certifiable loonies left in this place and there is no way I'd want to piss off my partner in insanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 06:10 PM

That's not true! My sanity is just as questionable as that of either one of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 06:23 PM

OK, you got me there, LH.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: skipy
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 06:40 PM

So, the first post did go, then the computer crashed, so I sent again & we got both, what the hell to applogise twice is not a problem.
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 06:56 PM

skipy, you are one first-class guy. But we gotta do something here, because Little Hawk thinks he's as crazy as we are. (I was just humoUring him a few posts back.)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:02 PM

Jeri sez:

I think it might be fun if Joe and Catspaw swapped personalities for a couple days.

I dunno, Jeri. I'd have to learn a lot of new words...
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: skipy
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:05 PM

Truly he is crazy! as stated over a year ago , "I would love to meet him"
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:49 PM

Shatner?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 09:46 PM

I am typing this AFTER all the stuff below...I had no idea I was gonna get that carried away....brace yourself....or just ignore it and don't read it....it is what I had to say.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


"That post I questioned was allowed to stay because none of the clones who read it care that you get dissed on this forum. It serves a purpose for some of them, I'm sure. "

How is it POSSIBLE to read minds and assign motives to something which didn't happen? There can be a disagreement about the value & tastefullness of a particular post....these things are not black & white! But why make the subjective leap that NOT deleting it shows some preferential, cliquish behavior? Why would YOU, Peace, assume that there can even be a reasonable test comparing what is NOT done to skipy to what IS done to Shambles or some anonymous troll?
I am assuming that since the history of skipy's posts shows no particular hatefulness or troublemaking, it was assumed by those moderators who actually read it!, that it was not serious and was only borderline in being in bad taste.

There are many, many ways to engage in disruptive behavior and to sow dissention in a group....and everyone's notion of what is insulting, combative, rude, unfair, tedious, obscene, silly and generally 'out-of-bounds' can be quite different! A word, by itself, cannot be easily labeled....look at how often 'fuck' is tossed about and NOT taken as a gross insult! Those who have been here for a few years know that Catspaw's language is often 'raw', and I personally have made remarks TO him about it, but in overall context, I don't see him as someone who uses it as a real 'weapon', but mostly as an attention getting device. I wish he'd stick to big fonts & color, but 97% of his 'bad words' are not mean or vindictive...and I'm not sure about the other 3%.

   Shambles makes this BIG point that he-- nice, clean, gentle guy that he is, doesn't call people names. Wonderful! But he has managed to 'insult' Joe and several others FAR beyond the naughty, colorful but vague language that Catspaw uses. (What IS a "broke-dick mammaluca", anyway?) The regular use of "Current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team", in context, conveys far more criticism and contempt than "mamalucca", and along with other choice phrases like "imposed editing" and "silent deletions" suggests that he has no respect for Joe and most of his team. Why is this bitter, continuous, nagging 'better' than a few naughty words uttered only after years of trying reason?
   I submit that if Shambles were a guest at a party in my house, and persisted in continuous nagging & complaining about how the party was run and suggesting that the whole thing were 'rigged' to allow others freedom while insulting him.....well, I would have invited him to leave WAY before 4-5 years (or hours) had passed!

Once more!!!: I have said before that what Shambles does is similar to what children sometimes do that infuriates their parebts or teachers...they whine, they nag, they prod, they complain...all in a 'reasonable' way, "Mommy, he got a BIGGER piece than me...you ALWAYS give him the best one.."...until something snaps and they get a response that perhaps seems extreme for the current example, but is just the result of testing the envelope once too often!

Folks...almost everyone who has tossed opinions into this debate has virtues and good qualities and can be a valuble member of this strange community...but, being human, they ALL have weaknesses and blind spots. This being the case, there has to be some way of dealing with the problem areas.....and I will say this clearly-- it cannot be run and moderated based on the type of compalaints Shambles makes...nor on cynical and subjective notions of whether Shambles is treated badly because of some subversive plot by some imaginary 'clique' or by "those who like each other"!!!........why do you suppose some members DO like each other and have a basic respect and trust? I know the answer, because ....because I have MET enough of them to KNOW that in spite of differences of opinion and personal idiosyncrasies, they are sane, honest, caring individuals who truly want this place to be as comfortable and welcoming as possible! I will tell those who doubt that I'd BET that you could not spend a few days at some event like the FSGW Getaway and come away still harboring the type of animosity and distrust you seem to now. Disagree on details? Sure...I don't 'agree' with everything or everyone...but I have seen how hard they try. I wish it were easier to 'show' those who doubt.....

Lord! I wish I didn't feel like I have to hit 'send' on this...and I wish I wasn't so damn sure how quickly it will be dismissed as just another bit of blather by "one of the in-group"....

well...it is what it is...

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:19 PM

Bill D, she says coldly, I'll have you know that I have no blind spots and I certainly do NOT have weaknesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:22 PM

I think Bill is a fine guy. Always have, still do and likely always will. That said--and meant:

"Some of us know how real are imposed editing and silent deletions."

Sometimes it is also what gets left on threads. However, I have to leave. See y'all another time. Late for this old boy. Have a good evening all.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:47 PM

ohh...right, Ebbie. I am SO *grin* sorry...I realize..*giggle* that YOU have no *guffaw* blind spots or *chortle* weaknesses....kinda like me. *stifled chuckle*

...now about that nomination for sainthood....will you prefer a golden halo, or will the usual pewter be ok?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bert
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 12:39 AM

Peace says ...skipy, you are one first-class guy...

And I must agree with him.

So is Shambles a nice guy and so is Joe and so is Peace and even Catspaw is great. I'm not so sure about Kendall *BIG GRIN*.

Then there's Jeri, and she's pretty too.

Now let's get on with the business of coping with this problem. Here's a suggestion. Let's have a TROLL prefix which moderators can add to any suspect thread. Then those of us who aren't interested in trolls could avoid those threads and the Usual Suspects could wallow in them to their hearts' content (kinda like the BS section started, but then that went and grew to be better than the regular section).

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bert
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 12:42 AM

Another suggestion, let's limit the length of a message to twenty lines, with the exception of songs, poems and stories.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Cluin
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 12:45 AM

Well, I'd definitely agree with your second suggestion, Bert.

But the first one sounds like it'd just give Shambles a new hobby horse.

But then again maybe old Rocinante is getting a bit tired and could use a rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bert
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 12:49 AM

...But the first one sounds like it'd just give Shambles a new hobby horse...

Actually our mate Shambles is not the only troll around. If there was such a heading, then you could ignore those threads if you wished.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Cluin
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 01:25 AM

I just meant he could start protesting about any given thread being labelled a "TROLL" thread by some member of the "Mudcat Editing Team" the way he protests thread title changes now..

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 02:11 AM

Well, Bill, I'm glad we got that straightened out.

I prefer silver. Pewter is cheap and gold is garish. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 05:52 AM

...why do you suppose some members DO like each other and have a basic respect and trust? I know the answer, because ....because I have MET enough of them to KNOW that in spite of differences of opinion and personal idiosyncrasies, they are sane, honest, caring individuals who truly want this place to be as comfortable and welcoming as possible! I will tell those who doubt that I'd BET that you could not spend a few days at some event like the FSGW Getaway and come away still harboring the type of animosity and distrust you seem to now.

Those few who have met and do know each other to some extent - may well want this. But perhaps you will accept that it takes more than just good intentions to conduct online discussion with the world.

More than just posting judgements, blame and trying to limit a wonderful opportunity and restrict and reduce it to a 'smalltown' concept they feel that can deal with and control?

For why do some seem to find it impossible to show a basic respect and trust to posters on our forum who they have not met and are never likely to? For that is the test.

I do more that just 'suggest' that I do not trust the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Has he and (some of) his team ever given any reason for any assurance they may give to me or to our forum to be trusted by anyone?

Whatever their intentions may be - are our 'moderators, currently showing very any respect and trust to our forum by their words and actions?

What respect is being shown by them being seen to openly criticise anonymous posting but at the same time defending their own anonymous posting and 'silent deletion'?

Or by being seen to ban certain posters for posting offensive personal abuse and at the same time being seen to encourage certain favoured posters to post the same thing?

Our forum is being expected to openly support the most blatent abuse of position bullying and unfair treatment as something other than this. Some of our posters are obviously prepared to.

But perhaps it is not sensible to expect something that shows no respect or trust - to be shown any.

Or something that feels itself qualified to judge and make public assumptions about every aspect of individual named posters but feels that it should be above all judgement.

Or something that ignores, excuses, minimises and attempts to justify every lapse and is seen to take no responsibilty for its results but expects others to show responsibilty

It does not work like this......And time has shown that it does not and will not ever work like this on our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 10:18 AM

I've said my piece..now I will limit myself to supplying halos for those who, like Ebbie, achieve that degree of perfection in their posting to qualify for sainthood.

Silver it is, Ebbie...but a warning...if your your head swells at the honor, you are immediately de facto DISqualified from wearing it!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 03:21 PM

I won't get a swelled head, Bill, until I rate a wooden halo. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 02:08 AM

I've said my piece..now........

I very much doubt it.

But it would have been useful if you had at least attempted to answer my questions.

What you were saying was just the old and snobbish 'people like us' argument. One long discredited and the cause of much of the needless judgement now encouraged to be posted about one's fellow posters.

You are still seen to be excusing or ignoring the blatent rule-breaking of those who are judged to be 'one of us' and its effects, whilst nit-picking and apporpotioning all blame to those are not judged to be 'one of us'.

As for assuming motivation - our 'moderators' and doing this and doing this publicly all the time and this is what you are openly supporting - because you make the assumption that they have some grounds (other than them just abusing their position in a personal spat).

Interesting but mainly just another example of the double standards a that are being allowed to ruin a fine opportunity.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 04:24 AM

In a recent conversation with a professional actor - they were asked if during their 'resting' periods they even got involved with local drama productions and societys.

They explained that the professional world was bad enough but that the political wrangling, sucking-up and bitching involved in these drama societys and clubs was far far worse and was something they were happy to live without.

They gave the example of their local situation which had firmly been taken over by a lady who turn out to be a complete control freak and now, without whose approval nothing could happen, no one could play a role and who, being seen to disagree with was total social disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Gizmo
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 04:52 PM

ANy newcomer with any sense would look into all the posts, even to the way back then ones and find out how far this has been going on for.

When the said newcomer gets a little bit bored of reading the same things written in 2005,2006 and 2007 - it gets a little bit freaky - de ja vu and all that.

After serious reading and re-reading of posts, I came up with my own logical conclusions:

1 - Often Shambles misreads posts. Something we all can do, but if you are going to argue against something, facts should be cleared up first.

2 - No-one is forcing Shambles to stay in mudchat. If he doesn't like his own special restrictions reserved just for him, and he doesn't like how this site is run, we have all read his complaints (hundreds of times) therefore he should put up and shut up, or leave. This is not his site to run, it belongs to Max.

I'm relatively new here myself. Not once have one of my threads been deleted, or a post deleted etc etc. This is NOT because I am the inner circle, got friends in high places etc etc. I believe it comes down to the facts that

1 If I did have a complaint I would go straight to MAX or Joe and PM them, or PM the person (if they are not a guest).

2 If I did get deleted, I would accept the terms and reasons that I was deleted for. I may have over stepped the line or made an innappropriate comment etc. I WOULD THEN LEARN FROM MY MISTAKE AND NOT REPEAT MYSELF OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

It is not our place to complain about a free service. We should appreciate what we have got, and relish it.

BTW if anyone has failed to notice, How many times do you have to ask someone to leave? You start of nice, gentle persuasion. Perhaps get more firm, then patience depletes to exhaustion, where you don't care if others insult this persion, because quite frankly nothing short of a stick of dynamite up the rear is goona make this person leave and stop pestering people.

The extent of complaints, and to the levels he is going is verbal harrassment. No-one should be subjected to that. Especially not the host (of a home, festival or forum). Quite frankly it is bad manners.

Clearly someone who INSISTS on staying where they are not welcome, and don't feel welcomed, has some problems they need to overcome. Unfortunately they won't see this unless they get out of the situation.

I have no venom for Shambles, just pity.

I too, like Bill before me wish I don't have to send this, but the big picture just shows rows and rows of dots, different shades of grey.

Sorry for the rant people.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 05:16 AM

1 - Often Shambles misreads posts. Something we all can do, but if you are going to argue against something, facts should be cleared up first.

Have you an example of a post you would judge me to have misread - for us to discuss?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 10:52 AM

Who said that we wish to discuss such an example with you, Roger?
And is it true that you mostly respond to others' criticism or queries with questions of your own?
Would you happen to be Jesuit-trained?
Will you answer my questions?
Does anyone care?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:39 AM

I find that the civility over the past few weeks has improved. I think that is the result of three things:

1) An astute examination of things and a smart move on the part of management to rein in GUESTS, members and clones

2) An honest attempt on the part of members and many guests to change the course of things

3) The fact that posts which get nasty are deleted, PERIOD

To all of the above I say 'bravo', and keep it up.

Shambles, I asked you a bit back to give it a rest for a while to see how shit works out. Please do. It seems to be working out. You have made your point and you were seminal in getting stuff to change., IMO. There's and old maxim in sales: Once you've sold the car, stop selling it.

If you get barred/banned--whatever the term is--a number of people will leave with you. However, I will feel less inclined to do so in support of you if you keep harping on the past. Many years back I listened to "Let Your Love Flow" by the Bellamy Brothers for three days--about 60 times per day. Roger, I can't stand the fuckin' song anymore.

Also, I think that those of you who keep slagging Roger on the thread should give it a rest, too, because I can't stand that fuckin' song anymore, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:44 AM

Apologies, Peace (and Roger) - mea culpa

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:13 PM

I likely owe more apologies than anyone who's ever posted to Mudcat. George, you are a gentleman and a brilliant songwriter, and my remark below wasn't aimed at you, buddy.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:19 PM

I know it wasn't Peace, but I had a rethink anyway. End-of-the-working-day-devilishness is to blame!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 01:37 AM

Blame it on the boogie.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 04:45 AM

Many years back I listened to "Let Your Love Flow" by the Bellamy Brothers for three days--about 60 times per day. Roger, I can't stand the fuckin' song anymore.

I suggest that by not choosing to listen to the song anymore - you have found the solution to that problem. One that you seem to have inflicted on yourself.

And that calling for the Bellamy Brothers the disband, not sing or record any more - might be thought a little disproportionate.

Just being able to express our views on this thread is a victory for common sense. It would not showing much common sense - having been subjected to so much for so long just to enable this - not to continue to try and discuss the issue.

And no poster is being forced to open this thread - are they?

I had thought that the the idea that none of us have any rights over what others choose to post had finally been accepted.

As had the reality that posting personal judgements is something - that if it must be done - is better undertaken privately. Rather than the thread being constantly refreshed by such judgements.

The most effective judgement that can be made of a post or thread - is to ignore it.

As to the suggestion that posts be limited to a certain number of words and the reference to our forum being 'Mudchat' - this is not a chat room but a discussion forum. Where it is what is said that is important - unlike a chat room which it is about who is saying it.

If anything - perhaps it is a minimum number of words that is required?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: My guru always said
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 06:12 AM

Isn't it easy to make a typo (which either the 'mudchat' of Gizmo's was, or perhaps it was just incorrect terminolgy)? Easy too to misread something or not understand the humour or serious issues between different cultures? I think it would have been nicer if Shambles could have given 'the benefit of the doubt' to Gizmo's post before posting his own reaction.

Perhaps another improvement could be made on the forum by extra 'proof-reading' and 'previewing' our posts before we send them. Goodness knows I've made enough posting errors myself in this forum, even to the extent of putting an incorrect year in a thread title *grin*

Maybe if we also conciously tried to take a little longer to think out and check our posts we would see less antagonism here. I've been glad to see some very well thought-out posts on this thread which have been able to explain people's thoughts quite clearly. (Oh, and there have been some 'from the hip' too)

But there are also a lot of posts here that do seem to be very repetetive and I find that I can't read them anymore. I guess there are a lot of other Catters who look in occasionally who feel the same way. In a discussion I feel the need to 'move on' and allow the discussion to evolve without pinning it down to one facet in particular.

I'm not brilliant at putting my thoughts into black & white and this post has taken a long time to put together. Just hope there's no typo's... *running away*

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 07:34 AM

To the mal contents I say, Anyone can get deleted. It happens to the best of us, and to the worst. Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 08:36 AM

To the mal contents I say, Anyone can get deleted. It happens to the best of us, and to the worst. Get over it.

Not too sure who you would judge the mal contents - for from your posting - you never appear to be very content yourself and have felt free to constantly moan about what other's choose to post.

And as posters to our forum are not made aware in editing comments what the true nature and current level of imposed 'silent deletion' (and all the other forms of imposed editing action) is - how could any of us make any kind of informed judgement about who it may happens to (and who it may not)?

In order to address this - perhaps you would support the suggestion for all forms of editing action be recorded in editing comments and for editing comments to be limited to where some form of editing action has been judged to be required?   

I have no idea who you would judge to be the best or the worst and what critria you would judge this by. Perhaps you would care to explain?

Perhaps you would accept that the facts show that the worst 'offender' on our forum never gets anything deleted (unless their posts are deleted along with all the posts, when entire threads are deleted)?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 08:45 AM

Roger, I have been accused of being in the "inner circle", yet I have been deleted. How do you account for that?
Furthermore, it doesn't matter what I think, or what you think. That's the part you just don't get.
You think the worst offender is still here, and I think the worst two offenders are gone. So, whos opinion carries more weight? NEITHER!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 09:42 AM

"you never appear to be very content yourself and have felt free to constantly moan about what other's choose to post. "

Isn't the obverse true Shambles - that you seem to "moan" about what others choose to delete? You also are "moaning" when others have an opinion that differs from yours. You are not different from the people you are complaining about.

As you pointed out, none of us have to open these threads or comment on what others post. Yet you choose to do that. You can't have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 11:52 AM

How about this? We're all guilty of everything we have accused each other of!

Heh! Could be, couldn't it? If so, admitting it would end this interminable bla-bla once and for all wouldn't it?

"Ahhhh.....smell that fresh, clean air! What a beautiful day."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 12:00 PM

I can't deny that Little Hawk! I'm the first to admit guilt.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Gizmo
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 12:14 PM

My apologies Shambles, and every one else who may have issues with it- it was a typo that I wrote mudchat - It should have read mudcat.

The majority of what I had written was for the guests who often put their two pennies in and disrespect this sites owner. I was pointing things out from my own perspective as a fairly new member, and not directing it entirely at Shambles. I hope it wasn't read as such.

Thank you shambles and guru for pointing out my mistake. I was in a bit of a rant that day, and perhaps if I had read my post a few times more I may have corrected my typo.

Shambles as for your question - I will pm you about it. I really don't see the need for the whole world to get involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 01:18 PM

As you pointed out, none of us have to open these threads or comment on what others post. Yet you choose to do that. You can't have it both ways.

I do try to respond to what others may post in a discussion and I may not always agree with their views.

I do try not to post just to moan about what others choose to post or post only to make personal judgements about them.

However, I may not always succeed in every case. And as I have been publicly judged here not to be a nice person - what can you expect?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 01:36 PM

Well, if you publicly judge the moderators and/or owner of operating the site in a fashion that you disagree with, what can you expect?

I realize you are not posting "just to moan", but neither are those of us who take exception to SOME of the things you write. There is a perception that you dismiss those who do not agree with you by writing it off as having your character judged. It is not a personal judgement to disgree with you.

Sorry,I should not have bothered to try to enter into a dialogue. I have been trying to learn from my past mistakes and not get back into this but on occasion something is said that I feel needs to be discussed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:33 PM

I think it is fair to expect discussion - on a forum set up for such a purpose.

Perhaps it would be better if all posters just concentrated on discussing the issue.

Or if they are to post only to judge the conduct and shortcomings of their fellow posters - that they would at least do this to all parties............

For there remains little I have not been called and little I have not been blamed for.

Is there not anyone other than me to be corrected or blamed?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: MMario
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:35 PM

200

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:51 PM

I think we have had a discussion. Our points have been made, your points have been made. We agree with some of your posts and disagree with others. Yet you continue to complain that we are judging you.

When our points are dismissed, perhaps you would agree that we have very few options other than to revert to discussing the manner of discussion as opposed to the facts that were already discussed to death? All that is left is the mudslinging - from you and from the rest of us who choose to post.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: gnu
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 03:10 PM

Well, I VERY seldom open these threads, but, I just had to see what was up.

You STILL at that crap?

Take off, eh, ya hoser.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 03:18 PM

Yet you continue to complain that we are judging you.

I am suggesting that YOU are not posting here to judge anyone other than me as being responsible.

And I am now suggesting that YOU can only speak for yourself.

If you consider YOU have made all the contribution to the discussion that YOU wish to - then why do YOU carry on posting?

When YOU do decide for YOURSELF to finally stop - WE can decide carry on the discussion in this thread without YOU (unless this thread is also closed or deleted).

And when or if WE decide for ourselves that WE have contributed all WE can - WE can decide for ourselves to stop too.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 03:57 PM

YOU are wrong because YOU are attempting to speak for ME with you interpretations.

YOU are trying to shut me out and not respond to my comments.

YOU are not allowing the discussion to continue by manipulating what I, and others, are saying.

I never judged you to be the only one responsible and I think you realize that, assuming you've read my past notes.

It is not a question of YOU, ME or even WE - it is a question for the owners of this site, and I think that has been answered.

Congratulations, YOU've won.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 04:03 PM

There are none so blind as those who won't hear.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 03:57 AM

Roger, I have been accused of being in the "inner circle", yet I have been deleted. How do you account for that?
Furthermore, it doesn't matter what I think, or what you think. That's the part you just don't get.
You think the worst offender is still here, and I think the worst two offenders are gone. So, whos opinion carries more weight? NEITHER!

With all due respect - what matters is if 'silent deltion' (and all the other forms of non-recorded editing action) is effective in acheiving whatever aims it is supposed to have or if is is counter-productive.

And our forum is now aware that the chief proponent of such actions has announced in his 'for the record' statement that his best efforts have failed.

I don't really know what these aims are or if those who support them know what these aims are either but I do really question if the use, defence and justification of such a tactics can really be designed to bring about peace.

For will not such drasitc actions only result in equally drastic reactions to it?

Are there not other ways that are less likely to result in such equally drastic reactions?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:12 AM

When the day comes thatyou are not able to access the forum at all, what will your REaction be?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 01:01 PM

When the day comes thatyou are not able to access the forum at all, what will your REaction be?

Probably that I really hope the absence of this single poster will have solved all of your problems for you.

And that you will never feel you have the right to - or ever have any reason to post again to our forum - only to moan about what any of your fellow posters may choose to post.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 07:27 PM

That's some ego you are lugging around! What makes you think that your leaving would solve all of my problem? Or even one of them? Guaranteed I would not miss you for a moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 09:32 PM

"For why do some seem to find it impossible to show a basic respect and trust to posters on our forum who they have not met and are never likely to? For that is the test."

Trust and respect are two commodities which cannot be demanded, but must rather be earned. If the people around me show no trust or respect for me, my first thought is "What am I doing wrong, or not dong right".

The building of trust and respect among my fellow men (oops! and women) is something I, not they, have to do, and I am unlikely to achieve this by irritating everyone I meet with repetitious whingeing, especially if I am whingeing about someone who has already gained the trust and respect of the people to whom I complain.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 02:05 AM

The building of trust and respect among my fellow men (oops! and women) is something I, not they, have to do, and I am unlikely to achieve this by irritating everyone I meet with repetitious whingeing, especially if I am whingeing about someone who has already gained the trust and respect of the people to whom I complain.

The point was being made here was he comparison between direct interactions and interactions on our forum.

The only way this can work is by showing a mutual respect and a rocognition that interactions online will be an entirely different thing to any that are conducted face-to face.

The problem here is that a poster' worth is publicly judged only from their views and posted words and described in emotive and subjective terms like repitious whingeing, hijacking, boring and worse, by those who will set the example for others to follow.

Should not those who feel themselves to be qualified to impose their judgement on others be expected to first show trust and respect - especially if they then demand it in return?

And when they are seen to set a different example to this - by indulging in personally motivated name-calling and openly encouraging certain others to inflict this on our forum - is it really any surprise if this example is judge acceptable and followed?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 09:15 AM

In other words... If a man calls you an ass, ignore him. However, if TWO men call you an ass, get a saddle." Old Jewish proverb

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,saddlecaster
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:06 AM

What if the two men are unworthy to cast the name?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:09 AM

Peter K (Fionn) has had a post deleted from the USA Britain NI thread.
I think it may have been a mistake?

---

I checked - the only messages deleted from that thread were from unidentified guests.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 11:01 AM

In other words... If a man calls you an ass, ignore him. However, if TWO men call you an ass, get a saddle." Old Jewish proverb.

No.

If anyone calls anyone any name on a DISCUSSION forum - they are in the wrong place.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:10 PM

And once again, you just don't get it. IT's A METAPHOR ROGER!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 05:20 PM

Golly, I feel honoured - just had a post deleted after arguing with that strange 'Dickey' fellow. To be honest I can't recall exactly what it was I said, but I'm clearly now in illustrious company! I do wonder why so much of 'Dickey's' ranting is allowed to stand, however.

---

I didn't see anything right off when I looked for deleted messages under your current IP, although sometimes IP's change during the course of a day - if you want to know about it, send me a personal message.
"Dickey" pushes the limits, but so far he seems to be following the posting guidelines in the FAQ, and cooperating when corrected.
-Joe Offer

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: jeffp
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 06:09 PM

You could PM Joe Offer for an explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 04:58 AM

And once again, you just don't get it. IT's A METAPHOR ROGER!

I got it the first time you posted it and this is at least the third time you have posted it. If you carry on - you may get judged as whingeing, repetitive and boring and have special restrictions imposed on your posting?

Not by me - for I think that posters can post their views as often as they like - as no one has to read or respond - nor post only to complain and judge the poster for this.

Does your metaphour mean that if enough people are encouraged to call others the same name - it follows that there is some value in that name?

The name you like to use is 'mal contents'. How would you define this, who would you include and who would you exclude?

The word 'sheep' is an old word used for those who just join in and follow any name-calling and do not appear to be able to make up their own minds or see the consequences.

If your metaphor is an old jewish saying then it is stupid and dangerous one.

To our great cost and not so very long ago enough people in a so-called civilised European nation were encouraged to call all jews (and others) non-persons (and worse) and make laws that enshrined this.

Should they have thought themselves to be non-persons?

Did all this succeed in making them non-persons?

I suggest that it did not.

But it did enable those encouraging the name-calling to steal (almost) everthing from these non-persons.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 10:22 AM

Roger, you just don't get it. You will never get it. Trying to make you see is an exercise in futility, and you are not worth the bother. Good bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 05:28 PM

It is not a requirement for all posters to be like-minded or to be bullied into agreement.

It is enough for posters to be seen to be able to agree to disagree in discussion, without making judgments of a poster's worth, posting personal abuse or name-calling.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 05:08 PM

A thread from the Mudcat Help and Trouble Forum.

Anonymous Posting Prohibited

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST, IPdrifter
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 11:53 AM

Thanks for the thread link. We'll soon try to post something there or here on the technical infeasibility of maintaining a constant guest identity while taking reasonable privacy precautions.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 12:09 PM

it is perfectly possible to type in one consistent name when posting. Many do this. 'Privacy' precautions are a red herring and a roundabout way of saying "I just don't want to follow the rules that most everyone else does."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST, IPdrifter
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 12:26 PM

It's not so simple, Bill. Typing in the same user name is the easy part. It's so easy, in fact, that several people could type in the same name. If a guest user name does not correspond with the same IP address each post, the guest becomes suspect and the post is more likely to be deleted.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 12:57 PM

It's about time! Bravo!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST, IPdrifter
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 08:29 AM

IP address blocking can be a crude method. It may shut out more than one person using a computer or a network. It may shut out multiple users of a popular PHP anonymizer.

Those of us who visit Mudcat and other sites by way of an onion router network will not each present an unchanging IP address. We don't always know the IP address when we arrive, and it can even change during a session. The resulting suspicion can lead to post deletion and even exit node IP address blocking.

My prospects are not good when using one user name with variable IP addresses. Prospects might be better when using a different user name for each post, or when not submitting a user name.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 03:01 AM

Subject: RE: Anonymous Posting Prohibited
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27-Jan-07 - 11:53 PM

Anonymous posting is still possible, but it IS prohibited. We don't usually bother to delete posts from the Help Forum because it's not set up to delete posts easily.
We'd much rather phrase our prohibition in the form of a request, rather than having to resort to coercion. Nonetheless, we will enforce the prohibition, even against all "13,000 computers" at one corporation, all of which showed a consistent pattern of posting anonymously.
If you want to post, use a consistent user name. Better yet, register and post as a member.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 08:59 AM

And, if you don't want to be a member, stay above the line. Simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST, IPdrifter
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 09:45 AM

Why should a visitor avoid thread topics presented on a page merely because they're in a separate list? What is there below the line that should not be discovered? Controversy? I believe that visitors should be encouraged to read below the line. Would you want to join without knowing what get's posted in threads below the line? If so, you'd be a candidate for disillusionment.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: jeffp
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 10:41 AM

You are invited to read, but post without a name and your post will be deleted. It's that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: jeffp
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 11:09 AM

Below, I think. I'm a member and I can read the FAQs.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: kendall
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 04:25 PM

Change is inevitable.
Resistance to change is also inevitable.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 07:35 AM

Isn't that the voice of the Borg collective speaking?

Worst thread ever was closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Gizmo
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 11:29 AM

No Shambles...

....We will assimilate you. Resistance is futile

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 04:19 PM

There is no 'we'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Cluin
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 11:20 AM

",... white man."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 12:07 PM

Cluin, wasn't that a reference to the punch line of the old joke -- hugely simplified here-- where Tonto is told by the Lone Ranger, "We're going to have to attack those attacking Indians"? And Tonto replies, "Who's "we," white man?"

Of course it's a joke with layers of racism built in, but even though most folks would not use that joke in these times, the punch line is designed to make folks think about that.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 01:54 PM

You could question if calling himself the lone ranger in the first place was really a very accurate discription for an obvious double act.

Or if Tonto was in fact in as much - if not more danger.

The Borg collective sounds like another Swedish rival to Ikea?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 02:00 PM

He was in fact cast as a Texas Ranger, and was in fact operating as a Lone ranger. "Loose Cannon Ranger" would be more accurate, but it's just too awkward for a supposed folk hero.

I mean-- say Zorro was pimply-faced under his mask, it would be accurate to call him El Pimplo, but it just don't sing right.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 02:08 PM

I suppose that anyone who has ever liked his own cultural community more than a neighbouring one (and said so) could be accused of practicing racism.

That would apply to about 99.9999999999999902 per cent of the human race in every known historical epoch, present and past. ;-) The reason people are so rabid on the issue of racism nowadays is this: It's in style to accuse others of racism in order to more effectively push a special interest of some kind. Secondarily (in my opinion), everyone tends to see it in others because they subconsciously see some reflection of their own prejudiced nature bouncing back at them, and that's why they dislike it so much.

It's the usual case of focusing on the speck in the other guy's eye, while ignoring the beam in one's own. (Thanks for that one, Jesus!)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Cluin
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 02:23 PM

"We're ALL racist, okay? Racism was started a longtime ago by somebody... personally I think it was the French."
    ~ Dr. Johnny Fever on WKRP in Cincinatti

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Feb 07 - 03:39 PM

LOL! Exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Feb 07 - 07:41 AM

Is this racism?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: jacqui.c
Date: 04 Feb 07 - 08:44 AM

Totally agree with you LH. IMHO we have a need to step back from condemning others and try to mend that fault in ourselves. Not ever easy, even if you are aware.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:15 AM

Three recent posts to the following thread appear to have been subjected to silent deletion.

Posting with civility

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: bobad
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:21 AM

Two of those posts were mine and I am in agreement with them being removed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:46 AM

Gee....One was mine and I could care less too. Take a tip from this Shammo......No one but you and the trolls give a turkey.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 08:16 PM

Two of those posts were mine and I am in agreement with them being removed.

The question is probably is why you bothered to post them and refresh that particular thread in the first place?

Others may take more care about what they post and having then taken this care, may reasonably expect their contribution to remain as posted.

It is perhaps not too unreasonable, when posts have been judged to require deletion or some other form of imposed action - for this to be recorded, the reasons provided and for whoever it was who imposed this judgement to use their regular posting name.

At least this would then be in keeping with what all other contributors are now expected to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:26 PM

He's baaaaaaaaack!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: bobad
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:52 PM

"The question is probably is why you bothered to post them and refresh that particular thread in the first place?"

I posted in response to a generous lady's offer to share her charms with us. As this solicitation, which refreshed the thread, was rightly deleted, my ill advised post was left flapping in the breeze (as it were) and benefited greatly by being deleted. My second post, saying that you were sweet, might be considered defamatory and for this I apologize.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 01:37 AM

"Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D - PM
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:26 PM

He's baaaaaaaaack!"




So am I, and with bloody good reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 02:07 AM

My second post, saying that you were sweet, might be considered defamatory and for this I apologize.

There may be need for others to apologise for posting their defamatory comments and name-calling - but as you explain - you were not doing this there is no need for you to apologise.

Perhaps you would accept that the all resulting comfusion could have been avoided if reference had been made to the fact that the post that had refreshed the thread and which you were responding to had been deleted and that this form of 'silent deletion' by persons unknown is couter productive?

For when there is no explanation provided in the form of editing comments - other posters could make the assumption that the posts deleted were far more objectionable that they in fact were.

For as we know - far more objectionable name-calling has not only been left as posted on our forum but has been seen to be encouraged to be inflicted on our forum from certain favoured posters, by those who still feel themselves qualified to impose their (often anonymous) judgment on others.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 04:39 AM

As this solicitation, which refreshed the thread, was rightly deleted, my ill advised post was left flapping in the breeze (as it were) and benefited greatly by being deleted.

May I apolgise for wrongly stating that you had posted to refresh that thread?

However, even if the post that did refresh the thread was rightly deleted, as you contend - it seems clear that all the subsequent confusion would have been avoided - if some indication of its deletion has been provided by whoever it was who imposed their anonymous judement on that post and also on the subsequent posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 05:23 AM

"Perhaps you would accept that the all resulting comfusion could have been avoided if reference had been made to the fact that the post that had refreshed the thread and which you were responding to had been deleted and that this form of 'silent deletion' by persons unknown is couter productive?"

What confusion? Perhaps you would accept that no-one else was confused and that you just chose to pretend that you were to make a point? Perhaps you would accept that you've been told many times that it's counter productive to comment on each and every editting action? Perhaps you would accept that the moderators aren't going to give in to your demands unless instructed to by Max?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 10:13 AM

Perhaps you ought to check out the Ombudsman thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 02:13 PM

Perhaps you would accept that no-one else was confused and that you just chose to pretend that you were to make a point?

As more posters than just me were confused - this perfectly demonstrates that it is confusing when posts remain in threads, that are responding to posts that have been silently deleted.

A simple resolution would be either the leave all the posts alone or if they really must be deleted - to always indicate and explain in an editing comment that a post had been deleted.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 10:28 AM

Public Services Ombudsman

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 12:41 PM

An entire thread that was refreshed, and which earlier today I posted to - titled something like 'Thank you to Joe Clones' - seems to have been 'silently deleted' by persons unknown and for reasons unknown.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:28 AM

Web Censoership has been closed by persons unknown and for reasons unknown and also appears to have been re-titled..................

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:59 AM

Web Censoership has been closed by persons unknown and for reasons unknown and also appears to have been re-titled..................

Retitled?
Do you mean to say that the original title was "Web Censoership"?
BTW, why should a thread that is closed be retitled? Makes no sense at all.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 08:43 AM

I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:07 AM

"why should a thread that is closed be retitled? "

Perhaps to enable a search for it by correct spelling?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:24 PM

btw

regarding a closed thread...

I saw the filmed interview of the 2 guys in the WTC sub basement that claim there was a huge explosion in the sub basement before any airliner impact.

They were not perfect witnesses. The US mainstream find it easy to dispel claims by non whites without advanced college degrees.
It makes me wonder why white people would belive jesus.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST, IPdrifter
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:55 PM

I'm learning that using a text editor, then moving text to the comment form, is something I should do when commenting. The text can be saved, which allows other efforts to post the comment if access is blocked. If the post or the thread gets deleted, the poster can know what he said, provided the post is saved. Tech-savvy folks already know all about such methods, I'm sure. Some of us were rather innocent and trusting upon our arrival here.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 08:27 PM

Sorry Donuel, you aren't telling the whole story - just enough to keep the theory alive.   The people in the basement went on to say tha the explosions were caused by the jet fuel pouring down the elevators. That is why threads like that are closed. Perhaps this one will finally be closed as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 06:35 AM

That is why threads like that are closed

Possibly, but if whoever imposed their judgement were to make themselves known and the reasons for their actions clear in editing comments - none of us would need to speculate - would we?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 06:39 AM

From the title of the post - the original title for that thread would appear to have been - BS: 9/11 Smoking Guns

Quite why it would be retitled before closure was imposed on the thread is yet another needless mystery to add to the collection.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 03:25 PM

"if whoever imposed their judgement were to make themselves known and the reasons for their actions clear in editing comments - none of us would need to speculate - would we?"

So what?   We choose to speculate, that is our choice - or your choice. No explantions required based on the published information about this site in the FAQ's. Whoever imposes their judgement is not necessary.

I'd love to see my local pizzeria to serve Sicilian style, but they choose not to make it. I order from the menu or take my business elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,Paying Guest
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 05:42 PM

You only get what you pay for in this life. How much you put into the MudKitty Shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,CTADP
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 06:03 PM

So why is a paying guest not posting under a real name? In other words, why should anyone beluieve you?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,clover
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 07:39 PM

'BTW, why should a thread that is closed be retitled? Makes no sense at all.'


It was closed to get it off the front page, and the name was changed to make it difficult to find in a search. The other thread on this subject was combined with another thread by a different name, and that one was closed, for exactly the same reasons. They don't want you to know about this piece of news, so they are suppressing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,clover
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 07:46 PM

This is what they are trying to hide


Collapse of building 7 reported in the past tense before it actually happened

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,clover
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 07:50 PM

Owner of building 7, Larry Silverstein, admits his building was intentionally pulled down, at his suggestion.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,cover
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:08 PM

For your consideration, Ron Olesko. Here is the 'rest of the story'.


'The narrator claims that he "later learned" that there had been an explosion caused by fuel pouring down an elevator shaft, but the lobby shows none of the soot or fuel residue we would expect from such an explosion. Instead we see blown-out windows and a fine dry dust covering the entire lobby, very much the signature of high explosives. Similar damage to the parking garages and subbasements can only be explained by pre-placed explosive charges that were detonated at the moment of the plane's impact.'

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Alba
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:21 PM

Instead of looking for a response in the BS section of a Music Forum to these facts may I suggest that it may be prudent to send them to an appropriate place were perhaps someone with the proper authority may wish to start an investigation, somewhere like here Blue Clicky for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:26 PM

Guest, cover, et al

The thread was closed, not deleted.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=99489&messages=1

thread.cfm?threadid=99489&messages=1


E-mail Joe or message him and ask if someone was off censoring all on his/her own. If so, he'll reinstate the thread. Consistent posting under many names just gives the people who LOVE to edit others an excuse to do so. There are a few clones who have been very vocal about their dislike of conspiracy theories and people who perhaps agree with them. They have the edit buttons and they use those buttons for themselves and sometimes on behalf of their friends. Others follow policy. Find out why your threads are closed or deleted. You sure as hell won't find out here. Message Joe Offer or e-mail him.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:30 PM

BTW, everything is not as it seems with the whole 9/11 thing. That is my opinion, and I don't give a rat's ass who does or doesn't like it. But I do not think your posts are being edited/closed/deleted by Offer. If they are, he will tell you why. So stop already with it on this thread and ask the question(s) where it'll do the most good for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,clover
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:42 PM

This thread was started by a member on Thursday. So far, no response from anyone in the know.

http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=3540&messages=13

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:01 PM

Beats me, Clover. However, I agree with what I said above. Send Joe a message or e-mail. I do know that I have contributed to various 'conspiracy' threads on Mudcat over the past few years. Most of them died natural deaths. I have no answer for you. But I think Joe will have. That's why I suggest you message him. If there is a clone doing the editing because of a 'personal' bias, Joe will deal with that. Notice that your links are here still. If they disappear, I think some people will be glad to see them go and others will want to know why. BTW, I non-hotlinked one of your site addresses on a thread and it seemed to remain. I can't locate the thread now, but I checked and it had stayed for two days and I think the thread just dropped off the page. Until you get an answer from the head of the 'cat threads, I see no point speculating.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:05 PM

PS

If they do disappear and it wasn't Joe who made them do so, I'll re-post them, hot linked.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:24 PM

"...Collapse of building 7 reported in the past tense before it actually happened..."

nonsense! That BBC reporter **SAYS** "It is now 8 hours since the attack.." The images over her shoulder were NOT always live while she was!

You see & hear what you want to...and you want to believe there was a conspiracy beyond the Muslims.

EVERY one of these theories has been disproven multiple times.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,clover
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:45 PM

She's standing in front of a window, Bill.


And then there this as well from the link in one of the threads what were closed. Time stamps on another report show that the report was broadcast about a half hour before building 7 fell.



BBC 24 REPORT IN-FOCUS

Time-Stamped BBC Broadcast Seals Media Foreknowledge of Building 7 Collapse and Use of Scripting

An alternate local BBC report-- which included a live time-stamp-- now positively establishes that BBC reported the collapse of WTC Building 7 at least 25-minutes prior to the actual collapse of the building.

The feed seen above (at top) reports at 21.54 London time that:

    News is continuing to come in as you can imagine. We're now being told that another enormous building in New York has collapsed. It is the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [better known as WTC Building 7] which was situated very close to the World Trade Center, right there in this financial capitol.

21.54-- 5 hours earlier in New York-- is 4:54 p.m., well before the actual collapse at 5:20 p.m.

This live feed did not show WTC 7 standing during the announcement, as it was showing B-roll of rescue workers on the ground.

The words used are very similar to the BBC report with Jane Standley, who also reported the WTC 7 collapse prematurely-- with the building visible in the live frame beyond the window. The latter coverage also included an explanation by the co-anchor that the building was not attacked, but, rather, was "weakened"-- perfectly in line with the official story even before the collapse took place.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:48 PM

"Owner of building 7, Larry Silverstein, admits his building was intentionally pulled down, at his suggestion."

Explain THAT!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:58 PM

Those murdering bastards! Hang ALL of the war criminals!

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:59 PM

You are putting together erroneous ideas based on misinterpretation of confusing data and speculation by amateurs, rather than studying careful reports from experts who spent months working thru the timeline, physics and photographic evidence.


There seem to be NO tragedies in the last 40 years that aren't 2nd guessed by conspiracy theorists.

I've spent 3-4 years reading these, and EVERY one is disproven if you'd just read the right reports.

I've had it...I will no longer enter into debates with those take 'conspiracy' for granted and interpret every thing they see in twisted logic and with specious 'facts'

Have fun......................

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 10:00 PM

I am not taking conspiracy for granted. I ask simply for an explanation of Silverstein's remark which was on film with him saying they decided to 'pull' the building.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 10:43 PM

We choose to speculate, that is our choice - or your choice.

No it appears to be you who chooses to speculate on the reasons for such imposed actions.

I would much rather be informed.

I suspect that other posters would prefer to be informed too.

They seem to have been deprived of that choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,clover
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 10:50 PM

Believe what you want to Bill. You can prove or disprove pretty much anything 'if you'd just read the right reports'. But it's been proven time and again that the United States has on many occassions created its own pretexts for going to war. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are no exception.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:55 AM

?? Yes...the ***BUSH*** group of idiots obviously played fast & loose with some facts and was simply careless with others. That has little relation to what was claimed above. Being incompetent does not automatically mean intentionally criminal. We have evidence of who did what in those terrorist attacks...we have wild guesses and circumstantial speculation about a lot of side issues.

(Peace...I was not even thinking of your posts. You usually say you are 'only' asking for better answers. I might wish you were easier to reassure, but at least you are not stating this stuff as 'fact'.)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 12:28 PM

" No it appears to be you who chooses to speculate on the reasons for such imposed actions."

No I don't, you do. I simply read the implemented standards of this site and understand the requirements.

It is not a question of wanting more, it doesn't matter. If you choose to speculate, that is your choice.   If this site wishes to close threads that are on subjects they do not wish discussed, or seem to be based on fabricated conspiracy theories, that is their choice. If you aren't happy, you can start your own site.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 12:40 PM

Bill-
In your eagerness to rely on the "experts" you forget the etymologu of the term:
"X" meaning an unknown quantity and "spurt" meaning a drip under pressure.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 01:26 PM

"but at least you are not stating this stuff as 'fact'"

It IS fact that Silverstein said "pull the building".

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:43 PM

But it is NOT clear exactly what Silverstein meant by his cryptic remark, and in 6 years, it has not been confirmed!!! The 'speculators' play the tape, then go on to make, ... ahem...'logical assumptions' about what that tape implies. An inordinate amount of weight is put on the word "pull". The theory is that **FIREFIGHTERS** wired and blew that building, while it was ON FIRE, in a VERY short time...while they had many other things to deal with. That would have taken LOTS of effort by many firefighters,(assuming they even HAD explosives), and yet I don't see any evidence that any of them have admitted to doing this.

Did Silverstein get money from insurance? Yeah...I guess so....does THAT prove he ordered demolition? Hardly...


(um...Dick Greenhaus...I heard it: expert...."ex" meaning 'has been" "spurt" meaning 'drip under pressure'.)

(yeah...I know...I said I wouldn't do any more of this....I'm TRYING...)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 02:45 PM

" The theory is that **FIREFIGHTERS** wired and blew that building, while it was ON FIRE, in a VERY short time"

That is one theory. Another is that the buildingS were pre-set to be 'pulled'.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 03:15 PM

right.... Just THINK what that would require! The desire, planning, getting accomplices...and the difficulty of hiding it...so many would have to know! And the danger BEFORE triggering it.

from this blog

"Why do people believe things that aren't true? Mass delusions remind us of something counterintuitive: Bad information survives by building constituencies. You'd think that a crazy idea would have a tough time persuading lots of people that it's true, but crazy ideas find safety in numbers. It's hard for one person to believe something nutty, but easy for 20 people, and if several thousand people sign up for the idea, their group can probably get tax-exempt status."

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,clover
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 03:26 PM

One day Bill you will be wearing quite a lot of egg on your face. I expect you will forget this conversation ever took place when that happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 07:04 PM

IMO, Bill D is one of the finest people on Mudcat despite that we disagree on more than a few things.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:35 PM

As far as egg on the face if eventually proven wrong is concerned, I don't know anyone who would not welcome a definitive answer. To have been wrong and to admit it can be two different things: Being wrong on occasion is the human experience; to admit it when proven wrong is the mark of a civilized human being.

See, that is one difference between a liberal and a rechter.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,clover
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:39 PM

I'm sure he is a fine person. But he doesn't seem to be able to discuss this subject without attacking the people whose views he doesn't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 08:58 PM

I attack ideas...not people. People who HAVE ideas I think are off-the-wall and who state those ideas as if they are revealed truth don't get a lot of respectful sharing of ideas from me, though.

I am willing to hear concrete evidence, but not 1 part vague & misleading data to 5 parts speculation.
As I have said, most of these conspiracy theories have precise, thought out, refutations by those in a position to sort rumor from wishful thinking.

You see the problem? If *I* am proven wrong, I will have to eat that egg on my face..(and I do NOT like eggs!)...but if no one proves all this "planned demolition" and "prior-to-the-time announcements" etc....then YOU can just keep claiming you are 'right' and that the proof has been hidden or someone is lying..etc. forever.

   Asking for more investigation is one thing...(even though there has to be a time to give up!)...but insisting that you have 'truth' and 'facts' based on subjective interpretation of spurious 'evidence' is quite another.
(I'm STILL shaking my head at those who claim that what hit the Pentagon was not a 757 airliner)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:01 PM

you mean I accidently got post #300 without planning it? Must be a secret elf deleting other post to allow ME to do it! What else could it be! ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST, conspiracy arrow
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:04 PM

clover, there is now a thread devoted to conspiracy theory issues. The subject of this thread appears above.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,clover
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:23 PM

The idea is to get it all out in the open and let people decide for themselves. You Bill, and a few others, are trying to suppress these discussions. That's not the way to find the truth, no matter how badly you might wish it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,clover
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:27 PM

I have seen the thread you mentioned conspiracy arrow. It's not a thread for people who want to seriously discuss issues like building 7. It is a thread for people who want to have some fun at others' expense. No thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST, conspiracy arrow
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:47 PM

clover, aren't you having fun hijacking this thread? Why don't you start one with a subject that fits?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,clover
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:51 PM

I don't want to start any threads. I would just like it to be safe for others to discuss this subject without being attacked or censored. When that happens, I'm out of here.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:23 PM

GUEST clover. I started the thread so that you would have a place to go discuss conspiracy. I happen to be one of few people here who agrees with you that much of what we've been told about 9-11 is not accurate. I di NOT start that thread so that you'd be ridiculed. When people begin that, I will start some fireworks back at them. But please understand, we are in a vast minority here. Yes, people are going to laugh. Hell, I believe that ETs exist, and I take some ridicule for that. But you have to know that when we say stuff like that, people are going to make fun of our remarks. It happens. And what can ya do? Hell, don't give a rat's ass. It works for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,clover
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:35 PM

I understand that Peace. But I don't think you can really get anything other than the kind of joking around you got on that thread when you put the word 'conspiracy' in the title. Someone else has started a thread called, 'BS: WTC collapse predicted by newscasters', that I think is pretty aptly named. Seems like that thread would have a better potential to contain serious discussion than the one you started.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,clover
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:38 PM

If the new thread on the subject of the newscasters doesn't get closed, renamed, or deleted, I will go my merry way and leave the discussion to others.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 04 Mar 07 - 11:43 PM

I don't see anything wrong with calling a spade a shovel. I think there has been and continues to be conspiracy to do with a coverup about 9-11. Therefore, I think the title of the thread is the absolutely correct place to have what the thread will be about. Some of the people who have posted there did so to ridicule. Others to remark. Others to post. We cna add links to that thread and turn it into a thread about conspiracies. However, that thread won't become that if we keep posting here on THIS thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:10 PM

I wondered what happened to 'Clover'...I just posted answers to him on that other thread, but he refuses to read it. Oh, well.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,clover
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 01:55 PM

It's not my discussion, Bill. As I said before, I was mostly interested in seeing that the threads in question were not renamed, closed, or deleted. That's my whole reason for posting in this thread. I'll leave you and the others who want to discuss this issue to have at it in the other thread.


I see that the thread started specifically about building 7 last night has been closed, but Peace's thread is still there and the link to the video is still intact. Hopefully, Peace's thread will not be interfered with.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 05:22 PM

No I don't, you do. I simply read the implemented standards of this site and understand the requirements.

I simply try to record when and where these actions are imposed.

You post to speculate on the possible reasons for why a thread is closed, retitled or silently deleted - as you have here.

You do choose to understand that the words of the FAQ say that the management will reserve the right to impose these actions - but not to understand that there are no words that say say these actions will be unrecorded?

If these actions had to be recorded - perhaps there would be less of them and no need for you or any of us to speculate on the possible reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 05:25 PM

Not very nice Mudcat has been closed by someone for some reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 05:30 PM

I am glad it was. Troll threads do no one any good.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Mar 07 - 05:31 PM

"You post to speculate on the possible reasons for why a thread is closed, retitled or silently deleted - as you have here."

I did not.

"You do choose to understand that the words of the FAQ say that the management will reserve the right to impose these actions - but not to understand that there are no words that say say these actions will be unrecorded? "

So? There is no point.

"If these actions had to be recorded - perhaps there would be less of them and no need for you or any of us to speculate on the possible reasons. "

No I did not, and there would not.

You made your suggestion, they chose not to act upon it. The end.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:42 AM

I deleted the "Not very nice Mudcat" because it was just an attack thread.

I can't understand why somebody took it upon himself/herself to close ALL the World Trade Center threads. Before I went on vacation last week, I agreed with a suggestion to combine three such threads -maybe one of the volunteers misunderstood and thought the conspiracy threads were supposed to ALL be closed. I'm sorry - that wasn't supposed ot happen. I can see no reason for stopping that discussion.

I saw the complaints when I came home last night, I was too tired to follow up on the closures. I've reopened the main thread now, and consolidated it with others.

And as for those who complain about my use of the term "conspiracy theory lunatics" - I think you take yourselves far too seriously. Maybe you should lighten up a bit. I said it in fun.

-Joe Offer-

Oh, and a big, hearty welcome to new Mudcatter GUEST,clover, posting on the IP previously used by CarolC and Jack the Sailor. Thank you so much for your wonderfully contentious posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:07 AM

Nice of you to out me here in the open forum, Joe.

Now, if you had been willing to out the anonymous poster who made the credible threat of material and possibly physical harm against me and JtS a few months ago, I would not be posting anonymously now.

But you didn't do that, did you Joe. Instead, you deleted the thread in which the attack took place, and you also deleted the thread in the help forum in which another member complained about the threat made against me and JtS.

Why did you delete the thread in the help forum, Joe? And why didn't you out that person in the open forum as you have outed both JtS and me in the open forum?

Who are you protecting, Joe?


And don't try to pretend that the threats were not serious and credible ones. Other people saw the threat, and I have it saved in my computer.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 01:11 AM

And by the way... another seriously stupid move on your part. I wasn't going to post any more now that the thread was opened back up. But you just couldn't leave it alone, so I guess we're going to have to have it out here in the open forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 03:29 AM

Sorry, Carol. While you were gone, we cracked down on people who post combatively, and on people who don't use consistent user names. If you wish to post here, you will have to comply.

Several Mudcatters who posted incognito to cause trouble have been "outed."

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 03:33 AM

So who made that threat against me and JtS, Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 03:36 AM

Which, by the way, he/she may very well have carried out, because that fledgling business he/she threatened to destroy hasn't gotten a single gig since he/she made that threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:15 AM

Sorry, Carol. While you were gone, we cracked down on people who post combatively, and on people who don't use consistent user names. If you wish to post here, you will have to comply..

What is meant by the word 'we' is that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has decided on yet another restriction in his vain attempt to continue to chase and control shadows. Whatever the effect this will have on our forum and even though these shadows are best ignored and do far less harm than all the clumsy and counter-productive methods imposed to deal with them.

But this restriction does not apply if you are one of the favoured ones, who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement on the rest of us - who are now expected to be known and stand by our words and actions with a consistent user name.

If you are favoured - you can not only post anonymously but also anonymously and silently delete the posts of others.

Perhaps it would be judged to be fair if the same expectations and accountabilty were seen to be expected from all posters and when the word 'we' once again would refer to us all?

For displays of power without responsibilty are not generally thought to be acceptable - as such things tend to lead to the abuse of that power. And even if they do not - it is difficult to defend from such accusations.

If there is nothing to hide - what is the point of our moderators acting like and giving the impression that there is?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:31 AM

"You post to speculate on the possible reasons for why a thread is closed, retitled or silently deleted - as you have here."
The Shambles

I did not.
Ron Olesko

Oh yes he did...........Didn't he children?

That is why threads like that are closed. Perhaps this one will finally be closed as well.
Ron Olesko

Despite Ron's speculation - we now find out - (in this thread and because this one is not closed or deleted) - that the reason that thread was closed was because some anonymous moderator is judged to have gotten it wrong - whilst the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team was away from his post.

But as these anonymous ones are not expected to account for their actions - this abuse of their power has happened many times before.

Sadly is never addressed and corrected and so it will happen again.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 05:49 AM

I deleted the "Not very nice Mudcat" because it was just an attack thread.

Before this rather drastc action - it was only closed and posters could judge for themselves. Now they cannot.

Would a similar thread but titled something like 'Very nice Mudcat' and containing only uncritical praise of the efforts of the current Chief of the Mudcat's team - also be subject to this?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:07 AM

It was closed to get it off the front page, and the name was changed to make it difficult to find in a search. (clover)

The most likely interpretation is that the originator of the thread herself used not the default entry in the subject line but changed it to make her point. That's the interpretation Shambles did overlook. That's why I did post my question. But he didn't get it.

But then, this thread now is about conspiracy theories and paranoia, and so that contribution fits well the new theme.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:07 AM

It's all over the web now, the BBC has reported the collaps 23 minutes before it happened.
23? 23?
Yeah, now it dawns upon me. That is the cosmic number of the Illuminati. That's how they show their footprint to those who can see.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Alba
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:23 AM

...and Wolfgang another weird coincidence perhaps is that Jim Carrey's latest Film just came out here in the US last weekend....it is called..."23".
23....again!!

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 09:25 AM

That wasn't speculation Shambles. Get it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST, IP drifter
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:13 AM

You did speculate, Ron. Read the quote included by the Shambles below. You are capable of some apt analysis of events in the outside world, and I've found myself agreeing with you at times, but your like-it-or-lump-it approach toward the running of Mudcat and your disdain for the concerns of the Shambles do not emanate from an independent thinker.

Wolfgang, even though you like to scamper in to snap at what you consider wounded and easy prey, don't you consider attempting to hijack this thread weak? You certainly won't coherently address the questions put by the Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:47 AM

My point is that I was not "speculating" but responding to Shambles. Yes, if you want to use semantics, then yes - the definition of the word made it was a "speculation" - but what I was referring to was how Shambles was using the word. I am not sitting here thinking about why a thread was closed - life is too short for that.

Yes, it is a "like it or lump it" approach to the way Mudcat is run because that is reality. This is not OUR site, no matter how much it has been sugarcoated. The reality is that human beings own and run this site, and it is not a public forum in the true sense of the word. Freedom of speech is not at issue here.

It bothers me to see people wasting their time fighting a dead issue when all around them our freedom of speech IS being attacked. Take a look at the FCC and what they have done to television and radio. Look at newspaper ownership and see how much it has been compromised. Those are the battlegrounds, not some tiny website where the control is beyond our reach.

I do not have "disdain" for Shambles thoughts as an independent thinker. Yet, you seem to have disdain for my thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:23 PM

The most likely interpretation is that the originator of the thread herself used not the default entry in the subject line but changed it to make her point.

Yet more speculation..........

But in the absence of information - all that remains is the sort of speculation which is at the very heart of all conspiracy theories and paranoia. Most of which start out as simple cock-ups which a more open initial reponse with little more honesty could largely prevent and which the opposite approach only fuels.

There may be times when secrecy, pretence and to cover up is the right approach but honesty is usually the best policy and one which avoids too many resulting complications.

If posters are now expected to be more honest, perhaps - rather than issuing threats and imposing yet more restrictions - a more honest and respectful approach can be tried?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:37 PM

Subject: RE: Thread about the forum: Why not?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05-Mar-07 - 04:42 AM

If you have a complaint, question, suggestion, or concern, contact me directly. There is a general consensus that the "threads about the forum" were not helpful, and many of the issues raised were of a nature that we could not answer them publicly.
-Joe Offer-
[e-mail]

Is there really such a 'general consensus' and how is it determined?

And if there were - and posters views are thought (by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to matter) - how does this square with the new 'like it or lump it' approach to posters on our forum?

If the views and wishes of poster are thought to be important - perhaps a more formal method of obtaining these views is required?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:55 PM

What has happened to freedom of speech? has been closed for reasons and by persons unknown.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:04 PM

Camilla's plan B has been closed for reasons and by persons unknown.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:09 PM

IMO, it fuckin' well shoulda been.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:54 PM

Well, Roger...it's sure good of you to keep us up to date on these things.....and it's good for a fellow to have a hobby- keeps him off the streets and out of low dives.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:56 PM

"and it's good for a fellow to have a hobby- keeps him off the streets and out of low dives."

That never did work for me, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:15 PM

Well yeah Bruce, but like me, I think your hobby was low dives.....

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:16 PM

LOL, you filthy-minded bugger. That must be what I've always liked about you.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:14 AM

IMO, it fuckin' well shoulda been.

Not sure if either your or my opinion is really thought important by those who impose such action but why should any thread be closed?

For there is no accounting for taste - is there?

There are many things on our forum that are not to my taste but I accept (as some posters start them and others eagerly contribute to them) that they are to the taste of some.

Why - if we can so easily ignore such threads and posts - should we wish to deny others what is to their taste?

For if we do - what will be left on the table will be a very bland meal indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:39 AM

Shambles,

do you only play dumb or do you still not understand?

Of course I cannot know what has happened but the whole point of my post was to correct the impression you gave in your 03 Mar 07 - 06:39 AM post. You have implied that there was a title change. All I did was to point out that there is another interpretation.

You have wrongly presented an interpretation as a fact.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:21 AM

You have wrongly presented an interpretation as a fact.

No

What I posted was that in addition to the fact that the thread had been closed for reasons and by persons unknown - that it appeared that it also had been given a new title.

For our anonymous 'moderators' to impose such action would not now come as a surprise. As for them to judge, close, delete or re title threads and posts and provide no explanation, is sadly now quite normal on our forum.

Would you agree that the only means of preventing such assumptions from being made (when it might not be the case and as you point out, there may be another explanation) is for all such editing action to be recorded in editing comments.

So when posters do not see an editing comment - they will then know for sure to look for another explanation.

Whatever the explanation may prove to be - the only fact we have to go on is that the title of the only post in that thread is different to the thread's title.

As I have said - I would rather posters were not left only to speculate if imposed actions had taken place and what the reasons for this may have been. I would rather that they were informed and could then openly discuss the reasons provided reasons with an informed view.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:35 AM

Try to get this through the sludge surrounding your brain.

It doesn't matter a whit what I think or what you think. Max has set the thing up and with Joe and Pene made changes as he desired. He sometimes asks for comments and sometimes makes some of his own.   Not since the very earliest of days has it been a free-form/ain't no rules/ type of place. The world got in the way and now some things are routinely done that didn't used to be. Notice too that lately there have been very few problems or acrimonius posts and most of the folks seem pretty happy.

Forget your reliable old Max quote......YOU have no say in it and no one is going to bother adding editorial comments for you to pick through and discuss......because there is no discussion. Got a gripe? Write to Joe or Max directly and you have seen that the occasional mistake has been corrected without your petty blathering.

In short Roger.....Have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:22 AM

Would you agree that the only means of preventing such assumptions from being made (when it might not be the case and as you point out, there may be another explanation) is for all such editing action to be recorded in editing comments.

No.

See, Shambles, the editing action has been recorded in these words: This thread has been deleted.

You read this and then you start to speculate about an action that has not been recorded.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 11:47 AM

"For there is no accounting for taste - is there?"

So, would you then be in favoUr of threads lauding nazis, ridiculing people who are deaf or blind because they are deaf or blind, talking about how much one admires mass murderers? Or how funny it is that a guy was castrated or that a woman who'd just had a hysterectomy is just another piece of human detrius who should be laughed at? Is that the shit you want to defend? You are correct: there IS no accounting for taste, but be sure that there IS an accounting.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:09 PM

So, would you then be in favoUr of threads lauding nazis, ridiculing people who are deaf or blind because they are deaf or blind, talking about how much one admires mass murderers?

Not being in favour of threads discussing such things or judging them not to be to one's taste - will not prevent such things and worse from happening.

The world is what it is - not talking about it, just making judgements and pretending that it is something else will not make it so.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 04:13 PM

BUT, there then is the rub, Shambles. THIS little corner of the world doesn't have to be like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 05:28 PM

THIS little corner of the world doesn't have to be like that.

You mean because posters are now denied their choice to see their words remain as posted?

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 06:19 PM

Sorry, Shambles. I don't wish to be a piece of your soapbox. I have and continue to agree with some of what you say, but I am not a guy who's about to have his words twisted so you can use them for whatever purposes you have in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 08:01 AM

I agree that this little bit of the world does not have to be like that and for many years it was not.

I don't question the many attempts to achieve this are (largly) well-intentioned but this end is not something that can be imposed.

If our forum is to be a place where all posters can feel safe to contribute - then the only way this can be acheived and the the only way it was once achieved is by the example set.

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: GUEST,Tìr Chonaill
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 03:35 PM

Somebody should buy The Shambles a PlayStation.
Or membership in a gym, maybe.

You think too much, my man.
Take it easy on yourself

Subject: RE: BS: Closed threads & deleted posts (3)
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 03:07 AM

See, Shambles, the editing action has been recorded in these words: This thread has been deleted

If this recording is to be the case in the future for all such deletions - it is a welcome start.

But I trust you will accept - that this case is the exeception rather than the rule?

And the fact that this deletion was recorded, was only due to the fact that some unknown person had already closed that thread and there was a link provided to it in this thread.      

Otherwise that thread would sadly have joined the every growing list of what are described as 'silent deletions'.