|
03 Dec 04 - 06:12 PM (#1346772) Subject: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Is this bad? It was posted by GUEST on the Black Watch thread. "ha ha ha ha ha ha i told you
[removed here, too] [it can be put back in. Do you want it put back in?]
ha ha ha ha ha ha" |
|
03 Dec 04 - 06:35 PM (#1346782) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules From: Max - PM Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. |
|
03 Dec 04 - 06:37 PM (#1346785) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Thank you, Shambles. Now I know. |
|
03 Dec 04 - 06:52 PM (#1346793) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: GUEST These comments from Jeri on another thread are worth considering: Subject: RE: BS: We've lost a good one From: Jeri - PM Date: 26 Aug 04 - 01:12 PM What progress can be made by blaming people? It's over, done, and I think trying to figure out how to keep it from happening again is more important. The only conrol most of us have here is over what WE contribute, and the 'cause' you (and I) think is important is not a 'who' but a 'what'. I will agree with Shambles a bit here. We are so used to expecting someone to clean up after us that we do stuff when we perhaps should know better. You know how many times I've seen a post which, under ANY circumstance, should have been deleted followed by one reply...then another...then another. ... The instigator gets blamed for all of it, but that "But MAAAA...he MADE me do it!" doesn't even work for kids most of the time. It should be pretty easy to see through here, too. Blaming people is a wimp-out; a way of avoiding any real solutions. Then again, I don't see this sort of thing ever stopping. There are too many here who enjoy it. We, as a group, get what we deserve. |
|
03 Dec 04 - 07:15 PM (#1346815) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Amos It is bad because it depends on obscenity, blame, and the nullifcation of others and has only upset as its purpose, has no art, is neither gracefuul nor musical, seeks to produce discord and is badly done even for the bad post it is!! Any questions? A |
|
03 Dec 04 - 07:40 PM (#1346840) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Little Hawk We have a number of bad posts here. For instance, there is one that is roughly 110 feet southwest of my front window. It's full of dry rot and is home to a nest of carpenter ants. It's all mossy on one side and has weird mushrooms growing off it. It has a crack at the bottom. Due to the crack, the dry rot, and the ants, it finally fell halfway over last week and this has caused our fence to sag badly in that section. I fear it may have to be replaced. Another 50 feet over was a perfectly good post...perfectly good until a visitor backed their car into it and knocked it down. It is now a bad post, because it's broken. Does that help? |
|
03 Dec 04 - 07:42 PM (#1346841) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Jerry Rasmussen Here, here, Amos! U Da Man! Jerry |
|
03 Dec 04 - 08:00 PM (#1346856) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Little Hawk Amos, you useless *%^$er! I blame YOU for all those &**king bad posts! That's right, All of them! You are worthless! You stink! I hope this here badly done post upsets you and aq whole lot of other people and causes endless discord on Mudcat, serious backbiting, and the eventual failure and cancellation of this entire f*&king forum!!! :-) |
|
03 Dec 04 - 08:07 PM (#1346861) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Bee-dubya-ell I generally make it a point to ignore posts when it's plainly obvious that some twelve-year-old kid has gotten hold of the computer while Mom and Dad are off to the pub. For that matter, I don't read posts that completely lack any attempt at proper punctuation and capitalization. Yes, I know there are some regular contributors to this forum that use the "no-caps-no-puctuation" style, but, if you're one of 'em, dig this: I don't read your posts! Listen up! Punctuation is a convention that allows the pauses, inflections and other nuances of spoken language to be communicated via the written page. We damned sure don't speak by running our words all together with no pauses or changes of inflection, so why would anybody want to write like that? Oh, you mean it's my job to figure it out? Screw you! |
|
03 Dec 04 - 08:11 PM (#1346865) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: McGrath of Harlow The instigator gets blamed for all of it And the instigator is to blame for all of it. But that doesn't mean that the people who respond aren't also responsible for the damage they cause. That's how guilt and responsibility work - sharing it out doesn't reduce it. In the same way that "it's not my fault - he made me do it" is a cop out, so is "it's not my fault - they chose to do it." We are responsible for all the foreseeable consequences of our actions. .......................... A bad post goes to the wrong address. So you take it round to the right address, or stick it back in the postbox. |
|
03 Dec 04 - 08:15 PM (#1346868) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: freda underhill for me, using punctuation in mudcat is like wearing a business suit and stilettos to do the laundry. i dont mind if you dont read my posts at all, but for me, its a sign that i'm relaxing after work. at work i write for a living, use all the proper formats, edit, re-edit, correct, punctuate, yes, use capitals aaggh etc. for me using lower case is the equivalent of fluffy slippers. so, um, stick that up your kaboozie. and have a lovely day. ooh, this post is rapidly deteriorating into........ A Bad Post! |
|
03 Dec 04 - 08:15 PM (#1346869) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: McGrath of Harlow And one of the results of responding to posts like that one brucie was citing is that it makes it harder to excise them. In some cases it can have the effect of ensuring that they stay in place permanently, in order to make it possible to make sense of a discussion that develops. brucie may have achieved that in this case, which I am sure was not his wish. |
|
03 Dec 04 - 08:25 PM (#1346875) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Fooles Troupe Woodworm! |
|
03 Dec 04 - 08:27 PM (#1346876) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Bobert Well, hey, I'll play devil's advocate here, my own boney hillbilly Christain self... I'm thinking back to a class I took when I was in art school. I can't rememeber the guys name but it was entitled "Contempoary Art Seminar" or soemthing like that and the fist class he asked everyone in the class "What is art?" and got an interesting collection of responses. After everyone had an opportunity to reply he took the trash can next to his desk/podium filled with previous classes miscellany and like bailing out a boat emptied it's contents all over the room while exclaiming "This is art!".... Well, if art is something that we react to, as everyone in that class certainly did, then, sure... it meets the criteria. Is it good art? Different question. Would you buy it? Probably not. But did you reat to it? Yeah... I think, given the website that followed, GUEST has certainly gotten a lot of folks to think. In that, it probably is a good post, irregarless of it's offensiveness. When I copied and pasted the website that followed I thopught of the horror that one must feel to see one's child killed in a war. I thought of the horror that Picasso captured in his painting "Guernica" with the arrow sharp tongue of the farm animal pointing toward the sky from which bombs would fall and kill not just farm animals but children and their families... It is well known that I am not a proponent of foul language yet I can understand the absolute rage that can bring a person to such a level. When war touches one on a personal basis it has to have a dehumanizing effect on them. I mean, look back to the evening of 9/11 and your own thoughts and ask yourself honestly what you are capable of given the circumstance. So, yes, I was offended by GUEST's post but I am equally offended by my country's foriegen policy that trades kids lives for oil... Peace Bobert |
|
03 Dec 04 - 08:35 PM (#1346883) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: freda underhill well said, Bobert. |
|
03 Dec 04 - 08:45 PM (#1346891) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: McGrath of Harlow But I don't get convinced that there was any sincere rage there at all, rather than mere manipulation by someone who was out to get a reaction, as a kind of game. |
|
03 Dec 04 - 09:15 PM (#1346904) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Bobert Yo, McG, Did you copy and paste the website? I did and I became enraged immediately without having to scrool down thur the various pictures of dead and badly wounded Iraqi kids... Had I not seen a couple of those pictures, I might also be questioning GUEST's rage... Bobert |
|
03 Dec 04 - 09:56 PM (#1346924) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Once Famous A bad post is one by a Brit that uses the word "wanker" in it. |
|
03 Dec 04 - 10:15 PM (#1346936) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace What IS a wanker? It's a noun, but what IS it? |
|
03 Dec 04 - 10:24 PM (#1346939) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Jerry Rasmussen If there's one thing I can't abide its a whinging wanker.. Jerry |
|
03 Dec 04 - 10:42 PM (#1346943) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: GUEST,.gargoyle A...bad post within the past six months, on the mudcat.org-forum has seldom occured.....
With the exception of many/most postings from a current infant member of the community.
Sincerely,
|
|
03 Dec 04 - 10:45 PM (#1346944) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: chris nightbird childs One who Wanks = One who molests his willie, one who is not to be taken seriously, a tosser. (That's it, roughly...) ; ) |
|
04 Dec 04 - 02:38 AM (#1346998) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace And now involved with yellow journalism. So, how ARE you Greg? |
|
04 Dec 04 - 02:46 AM (#1347000) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Joe Offer Yes, Brucie, I think that most reasonable people would consider these to be "bad posts," the ones we have asked you to ignore so that we can quietly dispose of them. But since you have so effectively called attention to them, people will wonder - so here they are: Subject: RE: BS: 3 Black Watch Soldiers killied From: GUEST Date: 03 Dec 04 - 04:03 PM ha ha ha ha ha ha i told you ............ fuck the black wach fuck your sons and your dads and your husbands you will all die they will al come home in body bags you children will all be deformen your babyiz will be bourn like spaztikz fuck you all you wankers soul.true.ws this is what your so called mercenery soljers have done look whats really happening in iraq fuck you all remember ya troops will come home dead they will pay for here sins and so will you and you shitty little kids ha ha ha ha ha ha Subject: RE: BS: 3 Black Watch Soldiers killied From: GUEST Date: 03 Dec 04 - 04:05 PM http://soul.true.ws <<< see the truth Why in the world would you think that these are NOT "bad posts? Because they hadn't been deleted within a minute after posting? Do you think we can afford to have staff review every message the moment it's posted - or that we would want to do that? But yes, generally we delete posts like these because we don't want hatemongers to feel they can make a home here. OK, now that you understand, please do not call attention to troll posts, and do not respond to them. Thank you. -Joe Offer- |
|
04 Dec 04 - 02:50 AM (#1347001) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace "But yes, generally we delete posts like these because we don't want hatemongers to feel they can make a home here." Surprise to me. Gargoyle feels QUITE at home here.
So, what's your point? What is it that you want, Brucie? -Joe Offer- |
|
04 Dec 04 - 02:50 AM (#1347002) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Ellenpoly The only thing I assume is that most people posting on this site are adults. But that has little bearing on what they post. Read, or don't read. React or don't react. The choice is yours. Ignoring a post seems to be the most difficult thing for some folk to do. For me, it's only an indication that it doesn't take all that much to find and push people's buttons. Such is life. It's still up to each of us to choose what we say, how we say it, and if we care what the reaction might be to others. |
|
04 Dec 04 - 02:52 AM (#1347004) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: chris nightbird childs Like one of those old stone Gargoyles, right? I always though those were cool. Kinda creepy though... |
|
04 Dec 04 - 03:11 AM (#1347010) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: George Papavgeris Freda, you'll have to re-post with capitals and puctuation. Bee-dubya-el missed it. |
|
04 Dec 04 - 03:12 AM (#1347011) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: George Papavgeris Is that a new word - re-post? Riposte? Reap oast? |
|
04 Dec 04 - 03:17 AM (#1347013) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Repo St. |
|
04 Dec 04 - 05:16 AM (#1347076) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peter K (Fionn) Thanks for putting in the missing bit Joe. The poster obviously has difficulty seeing his enemies as human beings. But isn't that condition a pre-requisite for the US military? What the training regime's all about? Is the guest's rant really that far removed from the way US troops hype themselves up as they prepare to "kick butt"? (And that's just the sanitised versions we see on the telly.) The post may be just a spoof of course, but if it's for real, it's a useful indicator of the hatreds that the US-UK axis is fomenting. And Bobert, how long can you go on dining out on 9/11? Some sense of perspective would surely be in order by now. There are plenty of ways you could measure the horrors of the world that would put 9/11 fairly low down the list. |
|
04 Dec 04 - 06:46 AM (#1347104) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles Max said Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. But the brown writing on the wall still says things like - Ask gargoyle or Martin Gibson how many of their posts get deleted. It's in the hundreds for each of them, I'm sure. Yes, we miss a few - and we rarely delete posts that are simply obnoxious and don't contain racism or personal attacks. So, what's your point? What is it that you want, Brucie? -Joe Offer- As the posters named are perfectly at home and along with nameless others will just carry on posting what they wish to - despite these noble but admittedly futile attempts to protect us from their contributions - perhaps it is now time to actually listen to what the site owner has stated? |
|
04 Dec 04 - 07:31 AM (#1347124) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: George Papavgeris So what we get to see are Gargle's and Martin Gibbon's better posts? Sheesh! |
|
04 Dec 04 - 08:04 AM (#1347140) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Bobert Fionn, You are entirely correct about my using the 9/11 as a referemce point. I rarely use it because with what Bush has done to the events of that day has been to sanitize it fir politcial consumption. To me, it still represents a day where most people people were absolutely horrified. Guess I haven't been been able to compartmentize it as well as the general population. I should have searched for a less watered down event that everyone could relate to. But I can't think of any that carries the universality of horror that most everyone would get. And that was the point I was trying to make in explaining the mindset of the GUEST post in question. You perhaps have stated it better. Peace Bobert |
|
04 Dec 04 - 08:20 AM (#1347147) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Bill D if you want to get literal, Shambles...and it seems you do...NO rules would mean not only can folks post anything, but the management 'can' edit/delete anything also...that they do not usually delete YOUR complaints says a lot about tolerance. (and in 1999 Max did not have quite the volume of hate and racist stuff to consider...nor quite to level of gratuitous obscenity) |
|
04 Dec 04 - 11:19 AM (#1347221) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles Bill I don't make the rules and nor do I want to - I have just posted on this open discussion forum for many years, under the impression that Max made the rules and if chose not to make them - I respected that view. It could well be that the increase in the level of gratuitous obscenity (that you refer to and I don't generally see and would not respond to if I did) is actually caused by the vain attempts to prevent it - by deleting only after it has been posted. The fact that this level has increased - according to you - must make it finally pretty clear that this method DOES NOT WORK. As it and all censorship is counter-productive - perhaps a return to Max's original concept would be worth a try? The only test of Joe's censorship and general tinkering undertaken under the banner of protecting us - from us - is if it works. As it obviously does not and you think the levels have gotten worse - why do you insist on defending it as an effective method? |
|
04 Dec 04 - 12:24 PM (#1347266) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: McGrath of Harlow Seems to work pretty well, so far as I can see. If anyone really wants to post something that would be liable to get excised - for example a personal attack on somebody, or a bunch of racist remarks - all they need to do it stuck it up on a website of their own, and put a link to it in a post here. I very much doubt if that would get removed, so everyone could be happy. Total freedom to say what you want, and total freedom for anyone else to click on the link and read it. |
|
04 Dec 04 - 01:22 PM (#1347302) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Stilly River Sage Joe, my condolences--and thanks--this means that you have to read all of that trash. What an (otherwise) thankless job. SRS |
|
04 Dec 04 - 01:30 PM (#1347310) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace "So, what's your point? What is it that you want, Brucie?" I believe I have had some posts deleted, too. You accused me of whining one day on a thread whereon I had RESPONDED to a troll. A number of people said not to respond to the troll. It was a bad thing to do. So, this time I didn't. I did not get into a pissin' contest with which ever troll it was this time. What do I want? Let me ask you that question, Joe. What do you want? If I have read you right, you do not want responses to trolls; nor do you want responses to personal attacks regardless of how they are worded. Is this right? Answer that last question for me and I will gladly answer yours. BM
If I have read you right, you do not want responses to trolls; nor do you want responses to personal attacks regardless of how they are worded. Is this right?
Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. -Joe Offer- |
|
04 Dec 04 - 01:32 PM (#1347312) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Cluin Not only does he have to read it, he has to think about it and whether it deserves deleting and then has to do so, sometimes with a comment to explain his actions so that answering posts in the thread make more sense. Don't envy him that chore at all. |
|
04 Dec 04 - 01:50 PM (#1347322) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Jerry Rasmussen Huzzah for Joe: He cleans it up so I don't get it stuck to the bottom of my shoe. Jerry |
|
04 Dec 04 - 01:56 PM (#1347323) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: McGrath of Harlow Any kind of direct response to a post that ought to be excised (and there are such posts) makes it harder to excise it, because, unless the response(s) are removed as well, it'll be hard to make sense of the thread. And the better and more interesting the response, the worse. Otherwise you end up with the original post permanently preserved, as has happened in this thread. If there has been a personal attack on us, or more relevantly, on someone else (as with a couple cited in this thread), it is possible to write a post that sets out to set the record straight but which makes no direct mention of the offending post; it can be written in such a way that it will still make sense, if that post is no longer there. That seems to me a much better way of going about it. |
|
04 Dec 04 - 03:45 PM (#1347420) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Joe Offer You know, it's not a matter of protecting Mudcatters from something that would be too shocking to them. Most of us are adults, and can tolerate a bit of that - especially if we all agree to let stuff like that slip by, and not make a big deal of it. It's the reaction to provocation that creates chaos, not the provocation itself. That's why we ask people not to respond to trolls. We delete the troll stuff when it appears necessary, but I think it's right to expect people to just let a lot of it slip by, ignored. There's a certain level of chaos where it's impossible for people to carry on a reasonable conversation; and I suppose we have to control that chaos somewhat, so reasonable people can feel comfortable here. Exercising that control is a guessing game, and it's not something that is going to satisfy everybody. I've learned that there are certain people who will never be satisfied with anything, so I do my best to ignore them. We try to edit sparingly, doing just enough to keep the peace. If we get the cooperation of our "regulars," we can get by with a lot less editing. If we have people who turn every untoward remark into a brawl, then we have a problem. There's certainly room for a little verbal sparring here - but the all-out brawls tend to create a mess of everything. If a substantial part of Mudcat becomes a contest to see who can say "cocksucker" loudest, the reasonable people tend to feel uncomfortable and leave. -Joe Offer- |
|
04 Dec 04 - 03:51 PM (#1347430) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace OK. Then what are you going to do about those people who keep making personal attacks? I will cease responding to personal attacks for a period of ten days, and I will NOT make any: not through response, innuendo or implication. If nothing changes by the end of that ten-day period,, this deal is off. I am willing to try stuff, but turning the other cheek for friggin' ever ain't one of 'em. Bruce Murdoch |
|
04 Dec 04 - 03:54 PM (#1347432) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: mg I think some things should be deleted, and some personal attacks on someone should be reacted to. If it is specific and filthy, as some are, then yes. To both. Generic diatribes or off-color or whatever, yes, should be ignored. But at some point, civilized people stand up against offensive things. We have to get back to the concept of common decency instead of pushing every boundary that has survived. mg |
|
04 Dec 04 - 03:57 PM (#1347435) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace "who can say "cocksucker" loudest" It's the people who know how to make the damn clickeys and italic type. IT'S THEM! |
|
04 Dec 04 - 04:30 PM (#1347462) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: McGrath of Harlow It's strange how people repeatedly sneer at the idea of "turning the the cheek". It seems to me it's still a pretty good aspiration, even if all of us sometimes fall short. It's not a bad idea to write those justifiably angry responses and retorts, and push the Preview button to read them, but then miss out on pushing the Submit button. Save it instead to a file on your disc, at any rate until the next day. |
|
04 Dec 04 - 04:33 PM (#1347467) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace I'll have ten days to try that, Mc G of H. Good advice that I WILL take under advisement and consideration. One rule of sales: After one has sold the car, one should stop selling it. (If I knew how to make one of those 'grin' things here, I would, just to take the edge off that remark.) I appreciate the suggestion. BM |
|
04 Dec 04 - 04:41 PM (#1347472) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: freda underhill what constitutes a bad post.. its when a post moves from discussing of debating ideas to making personal attacks. and i lump in gratuitous obscenity with that. the other issue is control - challenges to Joe and Max seem to be from people, no matter what they say, who cannot fundamentally accept that someone else has the right to manage this place, to have "control" over them. if 95%, or even 30% of catters were complaining about Joe and Max, there would be a problem. the fact that only one or two people are complaining suggest the problem lies with them. in children this is referred to as oppositional defiant disorder. but these children often grow up. |
|
04 Dec 04 - 04:54 PM (#1347484) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Jerry Rasmussen Here, here, freda! I suppose if we're trying to be anywhere near democratic in here, then the will of most catters seems to be to accept, and at times even welcome some level of control from Joe. Jerry |
|
04 Dec 04 - 04:59 PM (#1347487) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace That said from both Freda and Jerry, and said very well IMO, we'll see what happens from here. |
|
04 Dec 04 - 06:07 PM (#1347545) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles Seems to work pretty well, so far as I can see. The fact that we are still going around and around and these posts are still being responded to (in any way, including deleting them) and Joe contributes here and talks down to the rest of us in superior brown - partly as not to refresh threads like this one that he does not like - suggests that there may be something wrong with your vision. If anyone really wants to post something that would be liable to get excised - for example a personal attack on somebody, or a bunch of racist remarks - all they need to do it stuck it up on a website of their own, and put a link to it in a post here. I very much doubt if that would get removed, so everyone could be happy. Total freedom to say what you want, and total freedom for anyone else to click on the link and read it. This is the solution of course - why post anything on the Mudcat open discussion forum at all - why not use this suggested method for everything? Then the vandals with a little help from you and Joe - have won and Max's vision is lost.......... If you me and everyone else are free to ignore posts on another site - why can we not just do on this one and why can we all not be allowed to make that choice for ourselves here? Without Joe and his royal 'we' deciding for us? |
|
04 Dec 04 - 06:33 PM (#1347566) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles Here, here, freda! I suppose if we're trying to be anywhere near democratic in here, then the will of most catters seems to be to accept, and at times even welcome some level of control from Joe. Jerry - i appreciate your very good intentions, however. The royal 'we' is the only 'we' that now appears to matter on this part of Max's site that is set aside for a forum for open public discussion forum. This royal 'we' - has made it clear over many years that they are not making any claim that 'we' are a democracy in any degree. Most long-term contributors have accepted this long-ago and also accpeted that there is little point in making the good natured pretence. Whether anyone should welcome any form of control from volunteer helpers like Joe is totally imaterial - as it is also made very clear that 'we' apparently have no choice. And as someone will now point out - if I don't like it I can go somwhere else. Despite this control freakery that has been imposed upon this forum - but because of Max's original concept and the many fine contributors - this forum remains a fine place. When the control freaks have finally succeded in making our forum ordered and ordinary - I may reconsider. Until then - the control freaks will just have to put up with comments from those who hold and express a different view. |
|
04 Dec 04 - 07:02 PM (#1347586) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: McGrath of Harlow "...this forum remains a fine place." Seems to work pretty well, so far as I can see. So basically we are agreed, Shambles. There are people from time to time who wish to use the Mudcat to make racist posts, or post vicious lying attacks on vulnerable people, and that kind of stuff. When that happens, I am grateful when that posts like that get blocked. Sometimes, perhaps, posts get removed that really don't deserve it, but nothing's perfect in this world. My suggestion about posting with a link indicates a way in which people who have their posts blocked, rightly or wrongly, can still have their say. They could even use it to find out if anyone else agreed with them that some post should not have been blocked or removed. I think that would be good enough for me, should that ever happen to a post I felt strongly about. |
|
04 Dec 04 - 07:51 PM (#1347638) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Little Hawk A bad post is a post that talks back. I saw a drunk having an argument with a telephone pole one time, and it seemed to be talking back to him. He could hear it anyway, although I couldn't. |
|
04 Dec 04 - 07:58 PM (#1347643) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: pdq termites |
|
04 Dec 04 - 09:39 PM (#1347704) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles "...this forum remains a fine place." Seems to work pretty well, so far as I can see. So basically we are agreed, Shambles. We do on many things but I'm not sure we do here. Am I wrong in thinking that your comment - Seems to work pretty well, so far as I can see. was in response to the following in my post before it? The only test of Joe's censorship and general tinkering undertaken under the banner of protecting us - from us - is if it works. As it obviously does not and you think the levels have gotten worse - why do you insist on defending it as an effective method? |
|
04 Dec 04 - 11:46 PM (#1347757) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Joe Offer Let me explain about my use of pronouns:
"We" means it was done by more than one person, or done by an individual in consultation with others. Most Mudcat editorial decisions fall into this category. "We" is never an individual. I never use the "royal we." -Joe Offer- |
|
05 Dec 04 - 12:16 AM (#1347762) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: katlaughing The only test of Joe's censorship and general tinkering undertaken under the banner of protecting us - from us - is if it works. As it obviously does not and you think the levels have gotten worse - why do you insist on defending it as an effective method? It works, believe me, it works...one must also consider the numbers of members now as opposed to way back when this all started. As membership increases so do the postings, including the Mudcrap, which encourages more Mudcrappers...then before ya know the whole place is in the toilet but for Joe, Jeff, Max and the Clones. |
|
05 Dec 04 - 12:19 AM (#1347764) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Ellenpoly So you'd rather I didn't refer to you in my correspondences with others at "His Lordship"??? ;-D Just joshing, Mr O. I know you'd eschew any Royal Confirmations as each good ol' Yankee should. ..xx..jez Miz Ellie to ma friends |
|
05 Dec 04 - 12:20 AM (#1347765) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: GUEST,Art Thieme A bad post is one that has too damn much spearmint stuck onto it. Art Thieme (P.S.----and all the stuff did lose it's flavor from sitting there all night long.) |
|
05 Dec 04 - 02:41 AM (#1347795) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles Let me explain about my use of pronouns: "I" means I did it - myself, alone, of my own accord. "We" means it was done by more than one person, or done by an individual in consultation with others. Most Mudcat editorial decisions fall into this category. "We" is never an individual. I never use the "royal we." The interesting, sad and most telling point - is that the words 'we' or 'I' used by you - never appears to mean 'us' anymore. |
|
05 Dec 04 - 02:42 AM (#1347797) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: chris nightbird childs The proverbial "we"... which I have to take right now.... |
|
05 Dec 04 - 05:49 AM (#1347858) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Jerry Rasmussen Joe's "we" means Jerry Rasmussen and many others of us. I'm sorry it doesn't mean "you," Shambles. Jerry |
|
05 Dec 04 - 06:16 AM (#1347866) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Little Hawk A bad post is one that is sticky, such that as one passes it one's clothing adheres to said post and must be tugged violently in order to get loose. This can happen for a number of reasons. |
|
05 Dec 04 - 07:08 AM (#1347887) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles Joe's "we" means Jerry Rasmussen and many others of us. I'm sorry it doesn't mean "you," Shambles. You don't sound all that sorry that Joe's 'we' does not include me, but seem quite happy as long as it includes you. But as I said - it is a shame that Joe's 'we' never appears to mean 'us' anymore and that this further division and yet more exclusion is thought by anyone to be necessary on a public forum, when the object of all this censorship is supposed to be for the benefit all of 'us'. Jerry does one become part of Joe's 'we' only by always being in complete agreement with everything Joe may say or do and how do I now join and become part of Joe's 'we' - along with you? |
|
05 Dec 04 - 09:40 AM (#1347945) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: McGrath of Harlow "We" bears the same relation to "us" as "I" does to "me". It's all to do with the grammatical structure of the English language. The thing is, I occasionally we see posts that had better been deleted, but I don't see these deleted posts that shouldn't have been deleted. I think that probably appllies to most of us who congregate around the Mudcat watering hole. Maybe there really are lots of these unfairly excised posts, as Shambles seems asserts from time to time to time and again. It seems to me an excellent way to settle this would be for him to set up a website where they can be made available for people to examine at leisure. Simple, elegant and effective. |
|
05 Dec 04 - 10:24 AM (#1347971) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Jeri I never thought of it as 'superior brown'. I'm not sensitive to that sort of thing though. I figure anybody can use any color they want to, and you wouldn't want people mistaking what Joe said for what the poster said when Joe replies in a post...which I'm also not sensitive too, by the way. Shambles sez: "The interesting, sad and most telling point - is that the words 'we' or 'I' used by you - never appears to mean 'us' anymore." Is this, in fact, NOT a song by Neil Diamond? Does it not go something like: It's a sad and telling point My heart, this day, is sore That 'you' and 'I' when used by you-- I've seen the clue, I know it's true, I'm blue too, and I do rue-- You don't mean 'us' no more. Now, what's the rest of it? Seriously, I'm bored by the usual pointless excuse for verbosity, and hyper-defensive control-freakoutery and molehill mountainization. Quibbling about pronoun use and font colors is still pointless, but at least it's a bit different. Us enjoy this difference, and us thank you for the shift. As far as deletions not working, I used to work in Public Health and disease intervention was a big thing. Someone had a communicable disease, and we got involved to prevent the spread. You likely would have said we were ineffective, since we still had cases of the disease. We couldn't have proved you wrong, since there was no way to know what was prevented, and therefore, didn't happen. |
|
05 Dec 04 - 10:34 AM (#1347978) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Little Hawk Nice, but can you do candy-striped, like a barber pole? |
|
05 Dec 04 - 10:37 AM (#1347980) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull waht you writingf in diffrent colours for then? |
|
05 Dec 04 - 10:45 AM (#1347985) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Uncle_DaveO I believe Jeri's public health analogy is right on. Hear, hear! Dave Oesterreich |
|
05 Dec 04 - 10:51 AM (#1347988) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Joe Offer Maybe I should make comments in puce. Anybody know how to do puce? Batman's suit is puce, and sometimes I feel like Batman. If I had been Batman, I wouldn't have let Nicole Kidman slip away. -Joe Offer- |
|
05 Dec 04 - 11:12 AM (#1347999) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Jeri I thought Batman's suit was black. LH, I could, but it would take way too much time. jOhn: because. Joe, Jeez. Just type 'puce' instead of 'brown'. |
|
05 Dec 04 - 12:02 PM (#1348032) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles Of course the colour of a conventional posting is not at issue. The point is that a conventional posting will bring the thread back up to the top. An insertion (usually in brown) for Joe to make his judgement and 'editorial' comments - will not do this. This is not an ability open to all of 'us'. |
|
05 Dec 04 - 04:43 PM (#1348208) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Day 1 and not a nasty thing said to a soul. |
|
05 Dec 04 - 06:28 PM (#1348243) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Once Famous I think Batman is gay. cocksucker. (whispered) |
|
05 Dec 04 - 07:25 PM (#1348301) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Joe Offer Hey, I thought puce was a light purple color. Now, Brucie, maybe this will help you: I have to work really hard to ignore Shambles, because if I respond to Shambles, Jeri will bop me upside the head.... So for every time I slip and respond to Shambles, you can slip and respond to a troll (but then Jeri will bop you upside the head, too - and she'll probaby bop me, too, just for good measure). -Joe Offer- |
|
05 Dec 04 - 07:28 PM (#1348302) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace No slips for nine days. She bopped me up the head once and that was the end of that. Remains so to this day and will for the future. However, I shant slip. A promise is a promise. |
|
05 Dec 04 - 08:00 PM (#1348331) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Bill D by coincidence, I just happened on a website today which allows Mozilla Firefox users to refer to colors ....http://www.andreabinello.com/resources/webcolornames/ |
|
05 Dec 04 - 08:00 PM (#1348332) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Jeri I'm flattered that you guys live in fear of me and my head bopping skills! Joe, you're the control freakazoid around here. If you're going to do the dictator thing, then you're responsible if brucie or anyone else slips and you get bopped. Also, Joe, 'light purple' is lavender, isn't it? |
|
05 Dec 04 - 08:03 PM (#1348337) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Bill D unfortunately, Puce is not listed |
|
05 Dec 04 - 08:05 PM (#1348339) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Bill D but I believe this is puce... |
|
05 Dec 04 - 08:21 PM (#1348360) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace "you're responsible if brucie or anyone else slips" I don't break my word. I will be cool for nine days. |
|
05 Dec 04 - 08:24 PM (#1348364) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Joe Offer My dictionary says puce is dark or brownish purple, but Bill's puce is more the color I envision. But hey, if it ain't in the Crayola basic 8 colors, I really can't tell one color from another. I've worn bottle-green and navy blue and dark brown pants for years before I discovered they weren't black. I always make sure The Missus double-checks what I'm wearing before we get into the car, so she won't make us late sending me back to change clothes. They seem to match perfectly to me, but women always seem to think otherwise. Oh, and Bruce - I'm on the don't-respond-to-Shambles prohibition for a lifetime. Why shouldn't your interdict last just as long? jeri's gonna get ya. -Joe Offer- |
|
05 Dec 04 - 09:53 PM (#1348453) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Bill D hey!...I just went looking for a 'color selector' and found this little beauty! It will allow you to determine the RGB of any color you see, OR to move the sliders around till you find a color you like!...and lots more... what fun...post in colors no one else uses..*grin* if you want it, and want to avoid the 6 step download from sourceforge. here is the download link http://internap.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/colorselector/cs3.zip |
|
06 Dec 04 - 02:16 AM (#1348571) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles As far as deletions not working, I used to work in Public Health and disease intervention was a big thing. Someone had a communicable disease, and we got involved to prevent the spread. You likely would have said we were ineffective, since we still had cases of the disease. We couldn't have proved you wrong, since there was no way to know what was prevented, and therefore, didn't happen. We are not talking here about measures to prevent disease from spreading. If we were the focus would be on encouraging folk (mainly by example) not to respond. And that is a positive measure I fully support and have encouraged for many years. The measure of deleting contributions only after they appear, have done their 'damage' and been brought to our volunteer's attention for subsequent deletion can not be considered as a measure to prevent anything. It is prbably more akin to surgery. Which is sometimes used to prevent the spread of a disease or infection in an idividual case - but on its own, does litte to generally prevent the disease itself. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 03:56 AM (#1348601) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles "We" means it was done by more than one person, or done by an individual in consultation with others. Most Mudcat editorial decisions fall into this category. Can I request that to avoid confusion - that any future editorial insertions (in what ever colour chosen) are confined to the above....[I was going to say 'brown editorial insertions' - but that sounded more than a little crude and perhaps just like another way of saying 'bullshit'?] If this convention is always followed - that will leave our volunteers free to use 'I' or indeed 'we or 'us' in conventional postings that do bring the thread back to the top. This convention will then always make it clear, when opinions expressed by our volunteers, are their own personal ones and which (after proper consultation) will always have full editorial weight behind them. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 11:43 AM (#1348889) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Jeri can do as she chooses. That's her call. My was to be cool for eight more days, and then I see. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 02:02 PM (#1349018) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: GUEST,waiting for just one person to grow up "and then I see" Brucie, you're like a child saying "I'm gonna be good for ten days, and if everybody doesn't change as well by then, well...you're all gonna DESERVE IT if I get nasty again. SO THERE!" Advice; just grow up, stop getting pissed off at other people. It's about YOU being mature, not daring everyone else to be. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 02:04 PM (#1349019) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Thank you so much for your advice--whoever you are. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 02:06 PM (#1349023) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Of course, without knowing the 'quality' or 'character' of the person posting, I shan't be able to evaluate your advice. So, as I said, I'll see. Thank you again. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 02:11 PM (#1349026) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace "Brucie, you're like a child saying "I'm gonna be good for ten days, and if everybody doesn't change as well by then, well...you're all gonna DESERVE IT if I get nasty again. SO THERE!" Who are you? Do you have a name? Do you lack the courage of your convictions? That is, do you just say things without admitting to having said them and because your words are wise expect compliance? Huh. Interesting. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 03:37 PM (#1349104) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: McGrath of Harlow A touch of irritation there, brucie... |
|
06 Dec 04 - 03:49 PM (#1349114) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: GUEST,waiting for just one person to grow up Man, talk about falling on deaf ears! "do you just say things without admitting to having said them and because your words are wise expect compliance?" If there's any wisdom in there for you, isn't that enough? I'm a mudcat regular who just doesn't want the "wrath of brucie" to follow me around, but really needed to say what I said. You're a good bloke brucie, when you're not on a roll. But it doesn't take much to get you on a roll. But don't worry, you're not alone. I just thought you might be open to the idea of real change. It has to start with someone..but not with a ten day ultimatum. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 03:53 PM (#1349118) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace How about it starts with you, whoever you are. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 03:58 PM (#1349127) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace You presume to lecture me but do not have the decency to say who you are. Talk the talk but not walk the walk. Have a nice day. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 04:00 PM (#1349130) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: GUEST,waiting for just one person to grow up This is just what I mean. Ah well. People don't change until they're ready to change. I'm done. Good luck. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 04:00 PM (#1349131) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Kevin, Not irritation. Maybe more a disappointment. Reminds me of kids who decide to tease someone to see if they'll get a reaction. What does that say about the people involved? You may read whatever you wish into what I said; I notice you have anyway. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 08:49 PM (#1349435) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles My suggestion about posting with a link indicates a way in which people who have their posts blocked, rightly or wrongly, can still have their say. They could even use it to find out if anyone else agreed with them that some post should not have been blocked or removed. I think that would be good enough for me, should that ever happen to a post I felt strongly about. Well let's examine the logic of your suggestion of the use of other sites and turn it around a little. Over time - many folk are attracted this particular open discussion forum. In my case it was refreshing to find a place where pedants did not hold sway, and where there were few if any rules imposed. The credit for this was mainly Max's but long-term contributors like Joe certainly helped to encourage this atmosphere - which in turn attracted more people and so on. Over time - and for whatever reason. Disatisfaction is expressed by some which has now reached a point where we now find ourselves with hard-and fast rules and a ruling elite to impose their judgement upon everyone else (in order to protect us from us). There would also appear to be many who support this (not that they are given much choice) and seem to think that all this has something to do with the spirit that has made this forum the fine place - that despite all these fairly recent imposed measures - it still just about manages to be. But it is time to accept that there IS only one direction that the forum is headed - towards more of this overt control, more rules, more needless division and more pedantic imposed judgement and not away from it. With the idea expressed of - well if you don't like (what 'we' have now turned it into) - you can go somewhere else or start your own site. Perhaps those who find fault with most aspects of an open forum and who have now taken over control - those who make and impose the rules and judgement and who do not seem to like this open discussion forum to be a place where open discussion is tolerated and permitted to take place - and those that support all this - should really be the ones encouraged to start their own site? One where the rules could be placed up-front and if they like - they can moan and introduce a new rule every day. Let us get this straight - I (like many others) like this open discussion forum. I accept the downside of this openess and I do NOT moan about this. Perhaps those that do consantly moan and find fault with the freedom of Max's original concept (always so crucial to The Mudcat Forum) can please put all of their pedantry, control, judgement and moans - on another website and leave the rest of us alone? If not - perhaps and for start - they can stop telling others to go away and work towards a return to the inclusive spirit that still struggles to survive on Max's and our - fine open discussion forum? |
|
06 Dec 04 - 08:52 PM (#1349439) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: The Shambles What constitutes a bad post? Probably one that wishes to pass judgement on a thread and it contributors - but is not brave enough to refresh the thread and put it back to the top. |
|
06 Dec 04 - 09:11 PM (#1349451) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Jerry Rasmussen Brucie is the MAN! Jerry |
|
07 Dec 04 - 04:25 AM (#1349686) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Joe Offer Brucie, when she bops you upside the head, it's gonna hurt!!! I know, from first-hand experience. I've learned to cower in corners at the Getaway, whenever I see Jeri.... -Joe Offer- |
|
07 Dec 04 - 11:56 AM (#1349981) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Jeri It has been shown by studies done at Wattsupuid U. that 89% of all human arguments (including those on the internet) depend upon a defensive reaction to a stimulus for argument initialization to occur. They theorised that, should the reaction (if there was a reaction at all) not be defensive in nature, the argument might never occur, in effect, achieving the same results as the classic IRYG* response, causing the stimulus-providing individual or individuals to reclaim their spherical glass objects and return to their place of abode. Therefore, possible replies to the stimulus which may be effective in preventing argument development include: "Sure, fine, whatever," "I think it's commendable you have an opinion on the matter." and the classic, ".........................." Please note that "I am NOT!" "You first!" "Make me!" or "I am not going to reply to you, do you hear me!? You just want to make me mad, and that really pisses me off, so I am NOT going to get mad and I am NOT going to talk to you anymore! I'll talk to the OTHER people...Hey, you other people, don't think Elmer is a wanker? He keeps trying to bother me, but he really doesn't. He wants me to respond to him, but I won't! Watch this - I won't even notice him." *I'm rubber, you're glue; everything you say bounces of me and sticks to you. In the end, you have to ask yourself what good your post might do vs. what harm, and why you want other people to read it. What will readers across the globe get from my words, now and for however long Mudcat exists? In the end, remember, humor is your friend! (And 'growing up' is for other people, as far as I'm concerned.) |
|
07 Dec 04 - 12:38 PM (#1350025) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: MMario Now I understand why Joe was cowering in the corner of the cabin...and I thought he was just cold! |
|
07 Dec 04 - 12:39 PM (#1350026) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Really nice philosophy. |
|
07 Dec 04 - 12:50 PM (#1350033) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Joe Offer Well, yeah, Brucie - but doesn't she scare you a little bit? -Joe Offer- |
|
07 Dec 04 - 01:32 PM (#1350073) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace We don't speak, so no. |
|
07 Dec 04 - 01:53 PM (#1350092) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: McGrath of Harlow Boast pad |
|
07 Dec 04 - 03:53 PM (#1350223) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Donuel One day, a chap called Pete complained to his friend, "My elbow really hurts, I think I'll go and see my Doctor!" His friend immediately replied "Don't do that, there's a new computer at Boots [chemist/drugstore] that can diagnose anything quicker and cheaper than your doctor. All you do is put in a sample of your piss and the computer will diagnose your problem and tell you what to do." Pete, figuring that he had nothing to lose, filled a jar with his piss, went to Boots where he found the computer and deposited his sample and the computer started making a few noises and some lights started to flash. After a brief pause, out popped a small piece of paper which read: YOU HAVE TENNIS ELBOW, SOAK YOUR ARM IN WATER THREE TIMES A DAY FOR AN HOUR. AVOID HEAVY WORK. YOUR ELBOW WILL GET BETTER IN TWO WEEKS. That evening while thinking about how amazing this new technology was and how it could change the world of medicine forever, he began to wonder if the computer could be fooled. He decided to try. He mixed together some tap water, engine oil from his car, a stool sample from his dog, urine samples from his wife and her son, and, at the last minute, jerked off into the concoction. He went back to Boots, deposited the sample and paid his money. After the noises and lights, out popped a piece of paper which read: YOUR TAP WATER IS HARD, GET A SOFTNER. THE VALVES ON YOUR ENGINE ARE FUCKED, GET IT TO A GARAGE. YOUR DOG HAS WORMS, GET HIM TO A VET. YOUR SON IS HOOKED ON COCAINE, GET HIM TO REHAB. YOUR WIFE IS PREGNANT WITH TWINS, THEY ARE NOT YOURS, GET A LAWYER. AND IF YOU DON'T STOP WANKING, YOUR ELBOW WILL NEVER GET BETTER. |
|
07 Dec 04 - 06:34 PM (#1350403) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Jeri Brucie, honestly - I've never beat anybody up. Well, except Joe, but only once and he didn't even need an ambulance. Joe doesn't like to fight, so it really isn't too much fun The not speaking thing I hope isn't intentional, because it's not on my part. I don't usually think I have that much to say - I'm not avoiding you. I also hope I meet you sometime in the future. I think when we look at people through pixelated glasses, they all look at least somewhat worse than they are in real life. I really do believe in humor, though. It sometimes pisses people off, but at least I'm laughing. I once had a friend who would laugh at me when I was over the top or getting upset for silly reasons. Eventually, I'd see how my own seriousness and anger was funny. He's not around, and I miss that weird sense of humor. |
|
07 Dec 04 - 08:35 PM (#1350488) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: michaelr This is what I call a bad post: LilyFestre, CarolC has at least three orifices below her waist that face south. which one do you think her head is stuck in? This sort of thing should be deleted. Cheers, Michael |
|
08 Dec 04 - 12:08 AM (#1350609) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace Well, after a few days of 'self-restraint' and a few remarks from a wonderful friend, I think I can answer the question. I am not going to, but I think I could if I had to. Because it's a personal thing, it kinda leaves each to find the way that works. I found one and I'll make it mine. As a parenthetical statement, nothing GUEST said means a thing to me, because if that person had wanted to make an impact, he/she would have posted under his/her own name. I have never liked those who won't stand behind their words. I doubt that will change. For the rest of you, many thanks. |
|
08 Dec 04 - 12:18 AM (#1350616) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: GUEST,.gargoyle Ahhh....reminds me of the LaughKitty's early wicked days on the MC.
Well done Joe - you have the child confined pretty much to one thread.
With over 20 brucie postings he is doing a good job of playing with himself.
Sincerely,
More "trolling"..... you going to "bite-the-big-one" brucie - or can you count to ten? |
|
08 Dec 04 - 12:22 AM (#1350617) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: Peace You gay, Gargoyle? You seem to follow me around. I don't mind people being gay, but just so's ya know, I'm not. Now, run along. |
|
17 Feb 05 - 11:20 AM (#1412984) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: GUEST As a parenthetical statement, nothing GUEST said means a thing to me, because if that person had wanted to make an impact, he/she would have posted under his/her own name. I have never liked those who won't stand behind their words. I doubt that will change. |
|
17 Feb 05 - 12:30 PM (#1413045) Subject: RE: BS: What constitutes a bad post? From: GUEST,Badposter Weeeeeeeeelll |
