|
03 Jan 07 - 10:36 PM (#1926142) Subject: BS: The crack down From: kendall Thanks, Joe. I believe it will make the forum a much nicer place to visit without all the nastiness that has invaded the Mudcat these past few years. I know, I've done my share, like any normal male, I react whenever I'm attacked. Now, I won't have to. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 10:46 PM (#1926147) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Peace I thought this was a thread about something in the Kama Sutra. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 10:47 PM (#1926148) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: katlaughing Kendall, where is Joe's message to which you refer? |
|
03 Jan 07 - 10:50 PM (#1926150) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxno May every reasonable effort be made to state exactly what is being done and the justifications for the actions. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 10:54 PM (#1926154) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Cluin In the Help forum. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 10:55 PM (#1926155) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,a sometimes fan Kendall you and jacqui passed criticism in my 'WHERES CLINTON' thread. Then it was closed because people aren't meant (allegedly) to pass personal criticism. Why did you do that knowing it would lead to the closure of the thread? Some of us were concerned enough to wonder where the old bugger was. If you were not among that number why did you post? |
|
03 Jan 07 - 11:02 PM (#1926161) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall Kat, it's in Emma Bs post |
|
03 Jan 07 - 11:13 PM (#1926164) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxno Can a thread be closed for obscurity? |
|
03 Jan 07 - 11:17 PM (#1926165) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall Guest a sometime fan, I didn't do it knowing it would be closed. I was simply responding to another post. Please get the whole story before you pan the book! The man attacked another member once too often and Joe finally took care of the situation which he has every right to do, and he doesn't owe anyone an apology or an explanation. Being the gentleman he is, he did explain what is going on if you would care to read the whole story. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 11:21 PM (#1926169) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST He didnt explain what was going on before the threads were closed or deleted. I find you guilty of hi jacking a thread and personal attack. Please try and curb such behavior in the future. It is disconcerting to others of a sensitive nature. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 11:28 PM (#1926174) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall Don't try to bait me, I only react when I'm being attacked. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 11:29 PM (#1926175) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST As the thread in question was deleted we will never know. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 11:34 PM (#1926176) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall All you have to do is go to the thread titled I WALKED OUT OF A SESSION to know. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 11:35 PM (#1926177) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxno Official statements should come from those with official positions. |
|
03 Jan 07 - 11:44 PM (#1926185) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Why should I have to go to another thread entirely to find out why a different thread was closed or deleted? |
|
04 Jan 07 - 12:02 AM (#1926191) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Cluin If you don't want to go wade through the "session" thread, here is the Coles Notes version: 1. Shaneo said he walked out of a session where he didn't feel appreciated by the pub owners/staff. 2. Several people posted including Clinton Hammond relating their takes on the situation and their own experiences. 3. Kendall posted solidarity with Shaneo saying he wished he was there to walk out with him and suggesting to remain where you aren't appreciated was pathetic and needy. 4. Clinton then basically called Kendall arrogant. 5. Then (amongst other posts dealing with the subject of the thread which we aren't concerned with here) a lot of people attacked Clinton for attacking Kendall. 6. Clinton lashed back, getting nasty in the process. 7. Kendall, to be fair, seemed surprised at the response from Clinton. Then he accused Clinton of identifying with the "pathetic" and "needy" description. 8. Clinton insulted Kendall some more. 9. Clinton was banned from Mudcat. 11. People wondered where he went and threads asking if he was banned were deleted or closed. 10. Clinton doesn't much care right now. He is living his life. That's about it, as far as I know. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 12:24 AM (#1926197) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Rapparee Well, unless I get really, really angry -- and that's not very often -- I find it easier to walk away. 'Tain't cowardice, it's maturity. (But if I am attacked, seriously attacked, I will take whatever means is necessary to defend myself.) |
|
04 Jan 07 - 12:33 AM (#1926199) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Typical!!!!!!!! Post that while I am trawling through 300 posts on another thread! To compare - I found : 1. shaneo got pissed off with a loud tv while he was playing and pissed off. 2. clinton (who sounds like he gets paid for playing) observed he should have just stuck it out. 3. shaneo was doing it for free so didn't feel the need. 4. numbers 2 & 3 above explain the differing reactions to loud tv's. 5. clinton then took umbrage at something kendall said and possibly misread it. Easy to do on the 'net. 6. insults traded. 7. a crowd had assembled by now and joined in cheering for their side. In the middle of all that are hidden a few quite funny sun shining out of arses jokes. And clinton was banned for that? The asshole who does the coloured writing is worse than anything there. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 12:35 AM (#1926201) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Seamus Kennedy Rapaire, I like your response right up to (But If I am attacked...), I'd like to ask, how can you be seriously attacked on Mudcat? It's a computer screen with words on it, for heaven's sake... what's it gonna do, explode in your face? Now if a crazed 'Catter is waiting outside your door with a gun or a baseball bat, OK, go for it. Seamus |
|
04 Jan 07 - 12:37 AM (#1926203) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,Musicmic We have had similar experiences on a Philadelphia Folk Festival Volunteers list, mostly when the elections for PFS Board of Directors are being waged. Our list hostess (She calls herself our list mother and she is correct on so many levels) has had to step into some frays and suspend posting privilages to one or two miscreants. Her justice is swift and sure so, when I want to engage another poster in philisophical combat, I have taken to contacting him/her, directly, off list. This stratogy allows me and my worthy opponent to shout at will and, then, almost invariably, to resolve our differences. Oh, we have our pot stirrers, too, but that's why God made delete keys. Mike Miller |
|
04 Jan 07 - 12:38 AM (#1926204) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Peace "waiting outside your door with a gun or a baseball bat" Well, not if it's a Toronto Blue Jay's hat. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 12:45 AM (#1926206) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Seamus Kennedy Peace, that's BAT, not HAT. Go Expos! Seamus |
|
04 Jan 07 - 12:49 AM (#1926207) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Peace LOL |
|
04 Jan 07 - 12:49 AM (#1926208) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Cluin He just means there's not much to fear from a Blue Jay, Seamus. He has the non-Torontonian's good healthy hate of Toronto. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 12:50 AM (#1926209) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: alanabit For myself, bearing in mind that spiteful comments are going to be cracked down on, I shall try to control my own temper in future. At times I have been tempted to reply in kind to (usually) anonymous guests. Given that I frequently disagree with the views of other Mudcatters, I am usually only angered by those who make contentious remarks from behind a concealed identity. Rapaire and indeed you are usually able to respond with some grace and humour. I'll work on it! I welcome the crackdown. I don't know anything, which suffers from having better manners as the norm. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 12:51 AM (#1926210) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Will joe be cracking down on posting spam? |
|
04 Jan 07 - 12:53 AM (#1926211) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Peace I MISREAD IT! Expos ALL THE WAY! |
|
04 Jan 07 - 12:54 AM (#1926212) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Cluin Once a Montrealer... |
|
04 Jan 07 - 12:55 AM (#1926213) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Cluin But it's Habs season right now. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 01:00 AM (#1926215) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxno What is the crackdown, with specific reference to posting rules? |
|
04 Jan 07 - 01:08 AM (#1926217) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Cluin Don't be norty or you'll go to bed wif no dissert. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 01:11 AM (#1926218) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Peace That Montrealer thing is true. It was caused by Jean Drapeau and the fact that at one time everybody--all one and a half million people in the city had a friend who had a friend who knew the whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa. It was a closely held secret. Still is to this day. GO HABS! |
|
04 Jan 07 - 01:17 AM (#1926219) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Seamus Kennedy Well said, Alan (and Rap.) Peace, you'll have to come down here to D.C. to see the Expos! Go Caps. Seamus |
|
04 Jan 07 - 01:27 AM (#1926222) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxno If the thread-starter won't have to react anymore when attacked, as he asserts in his first post, what is the outlook for others who are attacked? |
|
04 Jan 07 - 01:34 AM (#1926225) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Cluin Jean Drapeau and Paolo Violi. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 02:07 AM (#1926235) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Rapparee Seamus, don't start a physical fight with me. Or rather, don't put me into a position where I can't walk away from it. One or the other of us would be hurt very badly, and I mean physically. Here, online, well, ain't nobody called me nothing I haven't been called before, and usually by better people. Best to ignore such, and if they want my address so that they can punch me in the nose, well, it's not a secret or anything about where I work. But it better be one good punch, 'cause that's all they're a-gonna git. And I apologize in advance if I go into "finishing technique;" it's an automatic program and I would do my best to stop before it came to that, but I really can't promise. That's why I'd rather walk away. Dead people are so, well, MESSY, and I feel badly every time I see the spot where I killed somebody. Why, I'd probably have the room recarpeted. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 02:28 AM (#1926240) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Stilly River Sage I thought you didn't have that problem with the red carpet in the basement. A Sears wet/dry shop vac will take care of the mess. There are some button-pushers here at Mudcat, and some people who walk around with their chins out and chips on their shoulders, just begging for someone to knock it off. It can add up to toe-to-toe meeting in the threads. Not a pretty sight, and perhaps a very good reason why there should be red carpets in many of our virtual houses. SRS |
|
04 Jan 07 - 05:06 AM (#1926283) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: John MacKenzie Cluin your succinct synopsis of the CH v Kendall affair is admirable, but relates to only one thread. The CH insulting Kendall thing has gone on for a long time, and apparently has it's origins in an exchange over the merits and demerits of Stan Rogers as a person, not as a writer performer, but as a person. CH was unable to accept Kendall's opinions on the matter, and instead of agreeing to disagree he took to insulting Kendall in a vicious and personal manner, including wishing rectal cancer on him. I think that this when said to a man who has already had medical problems with a minor cancerous growth is the lowest of the low. He also insulted another Mudcatter who is disabled, and according to a reply I got when I PM'd him to point this out, he was aware of this fact. While many people apparently admire his ability to call a spade a spade, many others, myself included find his abrasive and intentional lack of tact to be out of keeping with what one would expect in polite social intercourse. So don't make the mistake of thinking that he was banned for making one post, it was the result of a chapter of rude and abusive posts. He will probably do what several other banned posters have done and come back as an anonymous and obnoxious Guest. I think I even recognise the style of some of those posting in this thread. Giok |
|
04 Jan 07 - 06:11 AM (#1926310) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Emma B origins of a disagreement? I have heard the same description of Stan Rogers as a "boor and bully" recently when I was saying, in a chat room, how much I appreciated and enjoyed the CD of his songs that my Santa sent me this Xmas. Neither myself or one of the other "married women" in the room could quite believe the premise on which this accusation was based was meant to be taken seriously - I guess Clinton had the same problem. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 08:05 AM (#1926338) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: katlaughing Thanks, Emma, for the link. I had forgotten that thread, and, frankly, cannot believe so much has grown out of it. You'd think people would learn to let it go. Until just after Guest, Gloucsterman's posting on the 15th of Sept., it was not that bad, as Mudcat arguments go, imo. I think Kendall and Clinton are evenly matched in stubborness. It's too bad a music thread from well over a year ago has led to recent events concerning the two of them. As for Joe cracking down on spam, we clones are spending most of our time deleting it as soon as we see it. If someone sees it before we do, they should post the URL in the Help forum to let us know. We always delete spam, as long as we know about it. kat P.S. While I didn't like the choices Clinton made sometimes to express himself, I do like to remember it was his idea to start the whole Secret Santa exchange we've done every year. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 08:51 AM (#1926349) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxno The fact that "GUEST.not Joe Offer" has closed the second thread concerning closed threads and deleted posts proves absolutely that site operators are using the GUEST mode selectively. How can credibility be established when that is being done? |
|
04 Jan 07 - 08:59 AM (#1926354) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,NOT the fauxno idiot The fact is that the thread is NOT closed. This proves absolutely you don't know what goes on around here and would be better off butting out. You're showing your ass already. The red letters saying the thread is closed are INSIDE the posting box, not outside. Now go find somewhere else to play. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 09:15 AM (#1926361) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Rapparee Just for the record, I've responded privately to Seamus. What's a "Hab?" Is it some sort of nasty name? Backwards it spells "Bah", like in "humbug" (which backwards is "gubmuh" and makes no sense in English). For that matter, what's an "Expo?" ("Opxe" backwards). And I rarely feel threatened by blue jays or even the camp robbers we get out here in The West. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 09:18 AM (#1926363) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Becca72 It makes sense in French-Canadian. :-) As someone with an Expos AND Habs sticker on my car I appreciate the thought. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 09:20 AM (#1926365) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: JennyO fauxno, the guest was obviously funnin' around with some HTML - not hard to do. It's not the genu-wine article unless it's under the thread, with NO posting box. This Thread Is Not Closed. See? |
|
04 Jan 07 - 09:27 AM (#1926371) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: John MacKenzie Emma B, I was present in the chat room when the exchange you mention took place, and while on the surface what was reported as having been said was merely bad manners, or possibly even a poor taste joke, only the person relating the story was actually there. It's a lot like things written on here, meant in one sense by the writer and taken in another sense by a reader, either because of poorly written posts, or because of wilful malice on the part of the reader. I think you had to be there before you could declare a position regarding the reported remarks. You have to know the situation, the ambiance,the amount of drink taken, and many other variables. So if the person who told us the story says he was offended by the behaviour, we have to accept that he found it offensive at the time, as neither of us were present. Giok |
|
04 Jan 07 - 09:34 AM (#1926376) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST The GUEST of the 8:59 am post has more technical knowledge than some of us, and is obviously an insider, but those facts do not explain that poster's arrogance-based stupidity when it comes to grasping concepts, or his frustration at his impotence, or his extreme physical and mental cowardice, or his phony concern about "what goes on around here." |
|
04 Jan 07 - 09:40 AM (#1926383) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxno Tech-challenged as I am, I submitted the 9:34 am post without a handle. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 09:45 AM (#1926387) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Becca72 I'm probably going to be dismissed because I'm his daughter & I haven't been around here long, but I also know my father pretty damned well if I do say so myself. When he expresses an opinion it is just that. "I feel" or "I think" or "it's my opinion that...". Whereas Clinton is more likely to say "if you feel that way you're an asshole". And it goes downhill from there. The personal attacks are what gets Clinton in trouble. I have never known my father (Kendall for those who didn't know) to come right out and say "you're a prick". The same cannot be said for Mr. Hammond. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 09:53 AM (#1926397) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Rapparee The Cap'n would say "I thinkyou're a prick" then? (He said, smiling, ducking, and running for cover.) |
|
04 Jan 07 - 10:00 AM (#1926405) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Becca72 No, no Rapaire..."It is my opinion that you are a prick". ;-) |
|
04 Jan 07 - 10:06 AM (#1926416) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Emma B Thank you Giok, I believe I did say on departing the chatroom (and before I said anything I might subsequently regret when not so irritated) that I guess "you had to be there" I can differentiate between saying I find something offensive and that is an offensive person however. In fact I found a great many aspects of that particular conversation very distasteful! |
|
04 Jan 07 - 10:12 AM (#1926426) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxyes The GUEST of the 8:59 am post has more technical knowledge than some of us, and is obviously an insider, but those facts do not explain that poster's arrogance-based stupidity when it comes to grasping concepts, or his frustration at his impotence, or his extreme physical and mental cowardice, or his phony concern about "what goes on around here." Ooh - sticks and stones, my dear, sticks and stones! My only concern apropos "what goes on around here" is the fact that some people seem in grave danger of disappearing up their own fundaments. Relax, poppet; this too will pass - and sweet Shambles will still be tilting at windmills when New Year comes round again, that much I can guarantee. And some people will still be kind and helpful, and others will be incapable of civility, and others will still be trying to justify the war in Iraq by citing Kofi Annan's laundry list... But what concept is it that I have failed to grasp in my arrogance-based stupidity (and is there a humility-based stupidity as well)? As for impotence, I have as much or as little power in this forum as any here (apart from the designated clones). And as for physical and mental cowardice, extreme or otherwise, that's not for me to say. Thus far, however, if doesn't seem to have been found wanting. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 10:21 AM (#1926431) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxmaybe Maybe what all this navel-staring demonstrates is a need by Max to take a long, hard look at the Mudcat and concede that the whole BS thing is a bandwidth-hogging hornets' nest that would be better junked. With the notable (and unusual) exception of CH's boorishness in the "..walked out of a session" thread, most musical topics seem to be conducted in a genuine spirit of co-operation and decorum. Below the line, however, it's a bloody mess. The forum has grown too large, I fear, to cater for many of the subjects in the BS section. It's a bit like a bar - a small snug is fine for shooting the breeze and putting the world to rights, but the bigger and noisier the pub, the less easy it is to have a sensible conversation, and the more likely one is to end up with a punch on the nose. And yes, I know there are those wise virgins who say "but you don't have to look at the BS section - I've got a magic filter..." but that's not the point. Animosity begins below stairs, and filters upwards. CH is a case in point. And look at the ructions over Northern Ireland - ard mhacha, Divis Sweeney, Dave the Gnome and Keith A of Hertford are all decent people with a love of music. That should bring them together, but pointless (and boy, are they pointless) spats below the line serve to divide and antagonise. I just wish I could get all four in a bar together with a few beers and get 'em singing and playing... But, hell, I'm just a meddlesome guest! |
|
04 Jan 07 - 10:49 AM (#1926460) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: alanabit Actually, a bit of goodwill, good manners and the occasional apology work very well for most of us. I do not have the same politics as Doug R or Teribus, the same musical tastes as Clinton Hammond or Kendall Morse, nor the same views on UK/Ireland Relations as The Curator or Ard Mhacha. However, I have been able to enter debates with them without becoming embroiled in bitter feuds. I would not like to lose the amenity of this discussion forum simply because a minority of posters feel they need more control over other posters. What they really need is more control over themselves. An occasional bit of doorwork is necessary by Joe and the Clones, but on the whole, we grown ups can sort these things out for ourselves. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 10:58 AM (#1926464) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Agreed to a point - but that doorwork must surely be far more than 'occasional' given the traffic through here. It's also pretty inconsistent. One of the problems, maybe, is that the way the Mudcat is set up is quaintly old-fashioned. Most discussion forums now seem to be phpBB or similar, and to be moderated (with the moderating team for each topic generally named and contactable - which allows all users to alert them to offensive posts). Most don't allow guest posting, or at the very least restrict it. But this is all old ground, I suppose. Maybe Max will reconsider, but at the same time I can't blame him - it would take a fair amount of midnight oil to migrate the forum to a new format, and the poor guy does have a life. So perhaps the best approach is to treat this place the way we treat life - it might stink sometimes, it might be unfair, but it's the only one we've got, so make the best of it... |
|
04 Jan 07 - 11:12 AM (#1926479) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: alanabit Well OK. It's more like one of my favourite pubs to me. I reckon if someone is going to start a fight at one table, I'll move over and have a pint with Big Mick and Rapaire (or whoever) at another one. Going into a pub doesn't mean I have to fight anyone. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 11:32 AM (#1926487) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: number 6 "sweet Shambles will still be tilting at windmills when New Year comes round again" Good line, I like that. biLL |
|
04 Jan 07 - 12:55 PM (#1926555) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: katlaughing Just a note, guests cannot close threads, nor can non-clone members. Clones hardly ever close threads and then their decision is subject to change if Joe sees fit. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 01:00 PM (#1926561) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Amos |
|
04 Jan 07 - 01:26 PM (#1926588) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxmaybe Amos, that's not fair! Why, it could even be construed as dumb insolence... |
|
04 Jan 07 - 03:00 PM (#1926656) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Cluin Giok, I never meant to suggest that Clinton's being banned stemmed from his behaviour on only that one thread. I was only trying to synopsize the drama that went on there. I've known Clinton Hammond for a long time. We've shared a stage and seats at a bar many times, though not for several years since he moved south. He's always been one to get in people's faces and piss people off. He's not just some internet coward. He'd say the same things to your face. We disagree very often on many subjects but he'd still be one of my preferred drinking buddies. His abrasiveness is one of his qualities that make him fun to be around. That is, if you don't take things some GD seriously. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 03:14 PM (#1926662) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Clinton sounds like a nice guy in real life |
|
04 Jan 07 - 04:16 PM (#1926707) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall Where I come from that behavior is quite apt to get you hurt. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 04:18 PM (#1926712) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Amos fauxmaybe: You are reading between the lines.... :D A |
|
04 Jan 07 - 04:19 PM (#1926713) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: katlaughing Well, he told me I would be welcome anytime at his sets if I ever get up there. I wouldn't hesitate for a minute. And, he makes beautiful chain maille jewellry. I don't like the way he says things, esp. in the past year or two, but I'd much rather have someone who is honest about who they are than nameless snipers or ones like gargoyle. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 04:26 PM (#1926716) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall Kat, a great guru once said that the greatest of all virtues is straightforwardness. True, I agree, and I prefer people who speak their minds. However, to call someone an arrogant son of a bitch goes way beyond that and can only bring one response. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 04:36 PM (#1926728) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: katlaughing Even so, Kendall, I think there are more than one response. In tai chi, one would step aside as they throw themselves on into the brick wall, metaphorically speaking. A no response to such vitriol can speak much louder than getting into a pissing match with a foul mouth.:-) Generally people who speak that way, even if they are being straightforward, hope to get a rise out of you. It worked didn't it? Mind you, I am not making excuses for anything anyone said which was nasty, derogatory, etc. As I grow in age/wisdom(I hope!) I find it is much easier to shake my head and turn away rather than engage someone who wants to be so confrontational, etc. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 05:13 PM (#1926756) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxpossibly I just wish CH would learn to spell. There's no such beast as 'maille'. It's mail. And it's only made of links, even though there are bigger numpties who talk of 'plate maille'. Sorry, had to get that orf me chest. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 05:39 PM (#1926779) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Bee-dubya-ell "What you say about somfin is always less true than saying nofin." Willie, from Loop's Progress by Chuck Rosenthal |
|
04 Jan 07 - 06:04 PM (#1926802) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: ragdall Maybe what all this navel-staring demonstrates is a need by Max to take a long, hard look at the Mudcat and concede that the whole BS thing is a bandwidth-hogging hornets' nest that would be better junked. Why was the BS section added to this board? In my experience, the need for that sort of outlet develops when the collection of posters become a community and begin to interact with one another beyond the intended topics of the threads. In order to keep the threads from annoying drifting, new off topic threads are started. The off topic threads become so numerous that community members who care only about the main topic(s) of the board become frustrated with wading through to find the real posts and complain. A new section is created to house the off topic posts. Did that happen at Mudcat, or have there always been two sections? It seems to me that having the two sections allows members a choice of participating in the larger community, or not. In my opinion, the ability to post on Mudcat as a guest is too often abused by mean spirited registered members with long standing grudges. Many of the problems would be solved if guest postings were not allowed. I'm guessing that the current software doesn't allow different settings for above and below the line, though? I wonder if anyone in charge might consider switching to one of the excellent and inexpensive forum programs, such as Invision, which has much flexibility in settings for individual sections and moderation? rags |
|
04 Jan 07 - 06:20 PM (#1926810) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Peace These folks disagree with that statement, fauxpossibly. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 06:22 PM (#1926813) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: katlaughing That is exactly what happened at Mudcat, rags. It was one section, developed into more and more BS as community, which angered a lot of original members who wanted it to remain music only. So, Max started a separate section for off-topic. Mail (also maille, often given as chain mail or chain maille, though this is a modern usage) is a type of armour or jewelry that consists of small metal rings linked together in a pattern to form a mesh. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 06:26 PM (#1926816) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Bill D chain 'mail' is a scheme for making money thru the post...*grin* |
|
04 Jan 07 - 06:28 PM (#1926819) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Peace Shane mail is what the '85 billion' posters want. And friggin' soon, too. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 06:29 PM (#1926820) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Joe Offer Hi, Ragdall- We split off the BS section maybe three or four years ago. The way Mudcat is set up, the threads with the most recent posts go to the top of the Forum Menu page, and the non-music thread seemed to be pushing the music threads into obscurity. Since we're a music forum, we wanted visitors to see our music stuff first, not the insider chit-chat that might not be of interest to them. We thought of starting a separate forum for non-music stuff, but Jeff came up with the idea of dividing music and non-music - putting music up on the top. Right now, we don't have a way of excluding non-members only from the BS section - we're working on that and some other ideas. My experience is that very few Mudcatters go anonymous to "troll" - my guess is that fewer than five do that on a regular basis. Most of our anonymously nasty Guests have been consistently anonymous - and most NEVER have a thing to say about music. We really want to make it easy for non-members to post on the music threads, so we're taking our time figuring out a solution. On the other hand, we have to do something to limit nonmember posting, since we're being flooded with Spam and general nastiness. -Joe Offer- |
|
04 Jan 07 - 08:02 PM (#1926874) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: The Fooles Troupe "We really want to make it easy for non-members to post on the music threads, so we're taking our time figuring out a solution. On the other hand, we have to do something to limit nonmember posting, since we're being flooded with Spam and general nastiness." Support all you techie guys 100%. Currently the biggest technical hole is on the Help area, where any anonymous nastie can spoof being anyone, regular Member-name or not, and endlessly post nastiness in their name. Catch 22 - kick a foul mouthed arsehole out from being a regular member, and the real nasties will figure out ways to make as big a stink as they can. One suggested way to still allow most of the current Secret Santa fun is to allow only guests with a 'SS-' prefix (and of course all regular members) to post in only 'SS:' prefixed threads - maybe even during only a limited calendar period - say from Sept/Oct to 1 Feb. Of course only those up to their elbows in the mechanics of the system can make a decision on that. This would probably mean that "GUEST-God" et. al. would no longer be able to post at all - but there are some ways I can think of to set up to technically get around that - if any of the 'Mudcat-Engineers' really wants to ask my opinion, they know how to email me. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 09:03 PM (#1926921) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST A couple of things still aren't being addressed honestly, though. Nastiness against another poster, including personal attacks on them, is still a double standard offense. If you engage in such nasties but management likes you, you won't suffer the consequence of being banned, or at least threatened with it. If management doesn't like you, you will be blocked. Second, as has been pointed out by several members now, there are plenty of instances of management personally attacking members they don't like, and getting very nasty towards them. Shambles is the poster child for this, but he isn't the only one. Third, nastiness and personal attacks are not only tolerated when they are against anon posters, but encouraged, by both members and management alike. As long as that continues, you will have number four... Right now, the worst nasty/personal attack problems regarding non-member posting is spam, not anon guests pissing people off with provocative opinions and namecalling. The worst of the nasties/personal attacks in the last couple of years have been coming from members, not guests. As to why this level of nastiness and animosity is growing, see #3 above. Once you allow and encourage people to be nasty and mean to one group, it is impossible to stop it from spilling over into the forum at large. And finally, catspaw. He is as guilty of offensiveness, personal attacks, nastiness, etc. as has been Martin Gibson and Clinton Hammond. Difference is, he is a Mudcat Royal--an insider, a clone. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 09:21 PM (#1926936) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Sorcha Thank you Guest 9:03. But they won't listen. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 09:32 PM (#1926944) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall How about a special section for shit storms and personal attacks only? Call it THE TOWN DUMP. Seriously, I like the BS section. It's a chance to get to know others, and it can be a very friendly place. Most of the time it is just that. Let's not let a couple of hotheads like me ruin it. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 09:58 PM (#1926958) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: number 6 I agree with Guest 9:03 P.M. If anyone cares I'm getting really tired of all this crap, and I'm probably not the only one. We go and on about Clinton, MG, ... how many threads, posts regarding these 2 ... there have been a couple of members I know of, who contributed good thoughts, info, threads and they just up and left (quietly I may add) cause of all this ... no one even noticed. Does that say something, or doesn't .... I dunno. That's my 2 cents worth ... not much I know, but it's all I got left to but into this schoolyard. Spent way too much on this sh$t already. biLL |
|
04 Jan 07 - 10:07 PM (#1926965) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: *guest* People with gigantic egos can not ignore anything said about them. They must respond. When it is positive, they bask, preen, and feign humility. When it is negative, they strike back and then feel shame. Then they run to any available authority to eliminate the other person rather than taking responsiblity by ignoring what is said about them or settling the dispute privately. They must exhibit themselves. Either way, they bore. Being male is no excuse. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 10:09 PM (#1926967) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,#guest# Nor is being female. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 10:18 PM (#1926974) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: katlaughing Kendall, you haven't ruined anything. Regarding Catspaw, bullshit. People who don't know the history of this place have no clue of what used to go on. If he and Joe or anyone else who has been here a long time goes after Shambles it is his own doing. He ignored Max-the owner's request to leave, continually reposts the same shit going on several years, completely ignoring requests from many members to stop. He used to write beautiful songs and had a lot of support, but he went nuts over some stuff several years ago and derailed, trying to take Mudcat with him. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 10:20 PM (#1926975) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall Starting right now I am going to try to not respond to insults. Even such transparent ones from *Guest* |
|
04 Jan 07 - 10:24 PM (#1926977) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST And people new to this site kat are not interested in it's history. All they see is some spawn of the clampits writing in big red letters in a torrent of personal abuse against another member. Can the clones not agree at all? Either leave personal abuse alone or delete it all. It doesn't matter one jot to most of us if there is an R in the month and a full moon. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 10:27 PM (#1926979) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: *guest* Throw a rock into a pack of dogs. Only the one it hits, will yelp. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 10:29 PM (#1926980) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: ragdall Third, nastiness and personal attacks are not only tolerated when they are against anon posters, but encouraged, by both members and management alike. As long as that continues, you will have number four... The worst of the nasties/personal attacks in the last couple of years have been coming from members, not guests. As to why this level of nastiness and animosity is growing, see #3 above. Once you allow and encourage people to be nasty and mean to one group, it is impossible to stop it from spilling over into the forum at large. I agree. The net result will be a shift in the standards and attitudes of this community brought about by filtering out of all those who do not wish to engage in, or read, the nastiness. Those who like to brawl will remain behind to populate Mudcat and attract others like themselves to the site. New members will leave quickly, unless they are of the latter inclination. I couldn't find any rules here, except "no racism or hate". The apparently arbitrary nature of the "discipline" applied to members when they break unwritten rules, lead many members to assume that the moderator's actions are based more on the personal feelings of those in power than on the needs of the Mudcat community. This causes a great deal of distrust and bad feelings. Maybe Mudcat has grown up enough to have a set of written guidelines and consequences which can be applied equally to all members? |
|
04 Jan 07 - 10:39 PM (#1926984) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: number 6 "Maybe Mudcat has grown up" ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? biLL |
|
04 Jan 07 - 11:03 PM (#1926992) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,Art Thieme Joe, I'm with you all the way. Just do it with as little damage to your own blood pressure as is possible. No need to deal with the flack from it. Just delete what seems appropriate, including the reactions to the deletions. They'll never understand why it's necessary---which it is. A moderated forum is in the interest of the music. And that's why we're here. Art |
|
04 Jan 07 - 11:11 PM (#1926996) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Explain why the vitriol on the Irish thread was allowed to remain in place and threads will less of it have been edited or closed? |
|
04 Jan 07 - 11:38 PM (#1927006) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Ron Davies Clinton was on Max's probation--or even expulsion-- list--remember? No surprise that he finally stepped over the line. He knows what he has to do if he wants to return. And we can easily live with either decision he makes. And as far as "Guest"--why does anybody ever respond to him?--it's just shadowboxing--a total waste of time. Taking a name or a handle is an extremely modest request--and if he doesn't, that shows how seriously we should take anything he says. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 11:47 PM (#1927015) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: jacqui.c Well said Ron. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 11:50 PM (#1927018) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST I agree with Ron too. Of course it seems pretty strange to allow guest posts and then say ignore guest posts. |
|
04 Jan 07 - 11:51 PM (#1927020) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: number 6 "Clinton was on Max's probation" ... probation ... probation ?!?!?! "Maybe Mudcat has grown up" It will never grow up until us middle aged dopes get our heads out of this schoolyard mentality. Goofing off is one thing ... but this never ending primary school sqwuaking and whining rhetoric and finger pointing will get the Mudcat nowhere. biLL |
|
04 Jan 07 - 11:53 PM (#1927022) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: jacqui.c I guess it depends on the type of guest post. WE do seem to be getting a lot of negative and unpleasant posts right now, mostly from guests, that just seem to want to garner a reaction. Comes back to DON'T FEED THE TROLLS! |
|
05 Jan 07 - 12:04 AM (#1927029) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: number 6 Jeeeeezuz H. Christ this crap will never end. Keep it going biLL |
|
05 Jan 07 - 01:42 AM (#1927063) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxmaybe Peace, just because it's on the internet doesn't make it right. There's no such thing as 'maille'; it's a faux-romantic afectation you will only see written by Americans brought up on sword and sorcery pulp fiction, Dungeons & Dragons and suchlike. No serious historian or antiquarian arms and armour curator would use the word. Period. Actually just because it's on the internet doesn't make it right. ought to be the BS section battlecry - an awful lot of shit flung around is of the copy and paste variety. What would be rally radical would be to have people posting only what they actually know rather than merely parroting received opinion as 'fact'. That way the music threads would blossom and the BS would wither! |
|
05 Jan 07 - 01:51 AM (#1927071) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxall Jeeeeezuz H. Christ this crap will never end. So true! Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow creeps on... |
|
05 Jan 07 - 01:53 AM (#1927072) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,fauxnograf ...until some childish buffoon jumps in and shouts "One Hundred!" Why did that start? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 02:25 AM (#1927083) Subject: Anonymous Posting From: Joe Offer I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for those who insist on posting without a consistent name. For years, we've had serious problems with combative, insulting posts from posters who refuse to use a consistent identity. If you refuse to establish an identity here, it's natural that people will identify you as one of those problem posters. After all, their identity (or lack thereof) is the same as yours - so nobody has any reason to trust or respect you. As I have said before, "Guest" posting is intended to keep this forum open to occasional visitors who come with a comment or question - although even they are generally expected to use a name. The "Guest" posting is also available to people who can't use cookies, for one reason or another. If you want to participate in discussions in this community and be respected as a member of this community, use a consistent user name. Yes, it IS possible to submit an anonymous message here - but the consensus of this community seems to be that this is not respectable conduct. If you insist on nameless anonymity, don't expect to be respected here. Too many people who share your anonymity, have caused us serious problems. -Joe Offer-
|
|
05 Jan 07 - 03:04 AM (#1927097) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,Captain Ginger OK, point taken. I'll drop the faux this that and the other, and the Nutcracker characters and stick to one name. Captain Ginger it is. As to why - well, a chap's got to have some secrets, though it may be guessable. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 03:10 AM (#1927099) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,Captain Ginger And I've got no complaints about Catspaw. The man's a model of restraint in the face of the most extraordinary muleheadedness. Not that one would want to introduce him to one's significant other, of course. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 05:36 AM (#1927155) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: katlaughing French speaking folks might disagree about the spelling of "maille." Maille is also known as "Chainmail", "Chain Mail", "Mail" and "Chainmaille". These terms represent ongoing debate over the origin of the word "Maille". Some historians find "chainmail" a redundant term, since "mail" already defines a material made from chain. However, I like to use it occasionally because it is widely recognised. And I preffer the french "maille" which is derived from the Latin "macula" meaning "mesh of a net" as opposed to "mail" in order to avoid any confusion with the modern worlds of electronic and postal mail (however slim that possibility is). |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:27 AM (#1927181) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,Captain Ginger Mais nous ne sommes pas Francais, ma chere! The OED has five meanings for mail as a noun:
2 - A bag, pack, or wallet; a travelling bag, a portmanteau. (first found c1275) From which comes the letters, packages, etc., delivered to or intended for one address or individual (first found, in the USA, in 1844) 3 - Any of the metal rings (or plates) of which mail-armour is composed, or armour composed of interlaced rings or chain-work or of overlapping plates fastened upon a groundwork. (first found c1330) 4 - A small coin, normally a half denomination (first found in 1290) 5 - The game of pall-mall; a place where the game was played. Hence: a public promenade bordered by trees, thus The Mall in London (first found in 1660) But for 'maille' the OED lists only an obsolete, historical construct of '3' above, found once in Sir Firumbras, a mid-14th century alliterative poem, once in Chaucer's Clerk's Tale of the late 14th century, and thereafter reappearing only in Fairholt's Costume in England of 1846: Forms: ME mailye, mayl, maylle, meile, ME-15 mayll, ME-16 maile, maill, mayle, ME-17 mayl, ME-16, (18 hist.) maille, ME- mail, 15 mal, 15-16 male; Sc. pre-17 maile, mailee, mailie, maille, maillie, maily, mailye, mailyhe, mailyie, mailzie, malee, male, malie, malye, malyie, meale, mealie, mele. Plural mails; also ME -ez, -is, -us, -ys, ME-18 -es. Thus, unless one is speaking French, it's as silly to talk today of 'maille' as it would be to use archaisms like 'yclept' and 'fysshes'. Sorry, kat, it's just me being a terrible pedant and dragging the thread drastically off-topic. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:35 AM (#1927184) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: The Shambles 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- |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:38 AM (#1927185) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: The Fooles Troupe But Captain Ginger, most of those who affect the use of the word 'maille' were from my personal experience, habitual visitors to the Fantasy Realms, such as the SCA (been there, done that, still got the funny costumes in the cupboard to prove it!), and want to affect the use of that word to proved that they are living in an Anachronistic World! Robin once known as Robin the Ruthless in Battel from whence sprung 'The Fooles Troupe' there's nothing wrong with me mate, I was in the SCA and it didn't affec there's nothing wrong with me mate, I was in the SCA and it didn't affec there's nothing wrong with me mate, I was in the SCA and it didn't affec there's nothing wrong with me mate, I was in the SCA and it didn't affec affec affec affec affec affec affec affec |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:40 AM (#1927186) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,Captain Ginger Shambles, ol' boy, did you not read Joe's post: Anonymous complaints and complaints posted in the Forum are ignored.? Why don't you just drop him, Joe and Max an email. A 'formal request' (of whom, by the way?) is a rather pompous, histrionic thing, don't you think? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:47 AM (#1927191) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: John MacKenzie That's him Captain G, pompous and histrionic. A palpable hit, a veritable bullseye even! Chairman G. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:29 AM (#1927208) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: The Shambles Shambles, ol' boy, did you not read Joe's post: Anonymous complaints and complaints posted in the Forum are ignored.? The current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team will certainly assure our forum of many things and over the years has made many such assurances. Time and his own words have demonstrated that it would not be very wise for posters on our forum to accept or expect that partucular assurance given by him to be honoured - any more than it would be for them to expect any of the many others to be honoured. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:55 AM (#1927222) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,Captain Ginger Steady on, old chap - impugning Joe Offer's honour (and I shall refrain from the old joke punchline about '...and all night he was on 'er and off 'er!' Oops, it just slipped out, as the bishop said to the...sorry) would seem to me to come pretty close to a personal attack. So, for the record, you're now calling Joe a liar? That's not very nice, is it? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:01 AM (#1927229) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: jacqui.c Captain Ginger - many people, including me, have tried to get through to Shambles with logic and reason. It doesn't work. I would suggest not banging your head against that particular wall. It only leads to major frustration. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:07 AM (#1927234) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall I dare say all performers have some ego, otherwise they wouldn't get up on a stage at all. On the other hand there are snipers who hide behind *Guest* and lack the guts to use a name. That's one thing I appreciated about Clinton, at least he wasn't a coward. If you have a problem with someone's ego, remember this story about one of my favorite characters: Someone told Winston Churchill that Anthony Eden was a modest man. W.C. replied "He has much to be modest about." So, which of these men is most respected? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:16 AM (#1927238) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall I wish I'd never started this thread. Maybe Joe will delete it. Hey Art, I was just listening to your CD "Chicago and points west" great stuff man. Anyone who doesn't have this is being deprived. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:59 AM (#1927272) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: The Shambles Not sure about any sort of crack down - but reading some of this certainly cracks me up. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 09:02 AM (#1927277) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Rapparee Hey, Cap'n -- I've got it, love it, and I'm depraved. Does that count? And I sometimes use "yclept." Perfectly good word. Of course, I also use "sooth" "whoremonger" "Gadzooks!" "'Sblood" and others. And I'm not in the SCA because they wouldn't let me be a leper. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 09:12 AM (#1927285) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Jeri Probably because you wanted to use the name 'Khan'. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 09:20 AM (#1927294) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,jOhn Waht all this is about? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 09:22 AM (#1927295) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Why are Shambles rants allowed to remain in this thread? That's what his own thread is for. It really is disgusting how he is allowed to bash the ownership and management of this wonderful site. I don't know of any other web site where that would be allowed. No that MG and CH are gone how about finishing Max's request and banishing Shambles...or at least editing out all negative attitudes. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 09:23 AM (#1927297) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: SINSULL I have stayed out of this mainly because Ch became a non-person to me about a year ago. I refuse to acknowledge his posts. This was not always the case. Look back and you will see that he was invited to my Song Circles and offered the same bed and hot breakfast Seamus and Kendall and everyone else is offered. Then he chose to become a Martin Gibson wannabe. He failed at it mainly because when confronted with his obnoxious behavior he fell apart. I had enough when he wished cancer on Kendall. Some of you know that I provide transportation and moral support and have been doing so for years. It has been very difficult. Kendall is my closest friend and I love him dearly.I never said much about how I was doing during his illness - I wasn't the patient. But when CH cursed Kendall with more cancer I literally broke down and cried. I understand the effectiveness of prayer and I fear the power of a curse. If you would like to discuss this with me or ridicule the concept, please use PM. When I had calmed down I chose to confront CH in the chat room and make my feelings clear. I did not want to give him the opportunity to come back with some brilliant retort like "You're an asshole and I don't care what you think. This is the internet.' Some of you were in the chat room when I told him exactly what he was and why. First he told me it was none of my business. Then he lied and said he didn't know Kendall had cancer. (He had posted good wishes on Kendall threads). Then he turned to the group for help. Many of them were PMing me with encouragment. My personal estimation of him is that he is an ineffectual little man who plays the foul mouthed bully and true to form whines when he is outed. I wish Kendall had not gone for the bait but I also wish he had been kicked out of here sooner. Mary, who never posts as GUEST except once when I was teasing Kendall. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:10 AM (#1927341) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: freda underhill that is a brave and kind post Sinsull. It brings back the reality that all this was not about battling egos, it was about a bully who picked on vulnerable people. It's hard for most of us to see what has happened, or to understand why. There's a difference between being frank and harassing someone. No one should put up with harassment and people who confront harassers should be supported. The people that monitor this site see a lot more than we do. Some catters have learnt the hard way that the people here have good reasons for the decisions they take. freda |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:10 AM (#1927342) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall I mis spoke, Churchill was talking about Clement Atlee, not Anthony Eden. He also referred to him as a sheep in sheep's clothing. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:18 AM (#1927348) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Emma B "Only two Prime Ministers since 1945 have radically changed the way we live in Britain: Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher. Of the two, Attlee's changes were possibly the more remarkable as he took Britain into uncharted territory. Attlee's Government created the Welfare State we know today. It nationalised one fifth of Britain's economy and found the money from a war-devastated economy to build new schools and expand higher education. Yet most people think that the man who achieved all this was a grey, uninspiring figure - passionless and uninteresting. In the words of Churchill he was a 'modest little man with plenty to be modest about'. This biography shows us a new and unfamiliar Clem Attlee - neither modest nor with anything to be modest about - perhaps the most competent and professional Prime Minister Britain has had." from a new biography - Churchill may have headed a war cabinet but Attlee truly won the peace! |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:36 AM (#1927357) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,Winston Churchill "some chicken, some neck". He he. *cough*. I'll think I'll have a drink to that myself. Where's my bottle of Hines? *cough* Who stole my bloody, damned bottle of Hines! *cough* Goddamit! |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:39 AM (#1927359) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall And without Churchill there might not have been a peace, or a Britain. I must admit, I wasn't aware of Mr. Atlee's accomplishments. Thanks for the information.Apparently Churchill had a bit of ego too. "The truth is incontrovertible.Panic may resent it, Ignorance may deride it, Malice may distort it, But, there it is." (Winston Churchill) |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:47 AM (#1927363) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST But the biggest bullies here are management! They set the tone! And in this forum, they are constantly being abusive, engage in name calling, petty power tripping (the censorship, closing theads, attacking posters, and generally abusing their power), and other over the top behavior for moderators. Not only that, but their paranoid, super secret, only we have a decoder ring crap is infantile. In well moderated forums (which this one isn't), the moderators are not the thinnest skinned bullies on the block, like they are here, there is a clear, simple set of rules of behavior which are consistently enforced without personalities getting in the way. But as someone always points out, ultimately this is Max's website, so he chooses how the forum is run, what gets tolerated, who the moderators are, etc. This forum reflects the kind of person Max is, because he is the one responsible for it. Joe and the clones are merely the henchmen he hides behind. But this place won't "grow up" because Max doesn't want it to. Hence, this forum's perpetual adolescent tone and ambiance. You know you have a shitty forum, when there is no legitimate process through which complaints about management can be addressed and resolved. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:49 AM (#1927364) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: jeffp But for some reason, you seem to spend a lot of time here. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:52 AM (#1927366) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: MMario You know you have a shitty forum, when there is no legitimate process through which complaints about management can be addressed and resolved. there is one. You start with individual communication with Joe - and continue with Max if not satisfied. As has been outlined before and as I believe is in the FAQ On most forums *ANY* discussion of moderation or how the forum is run is banned and deleted immediately. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:53 AM (#1927367) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST The argument that maintaining "GUEST, as a category for posting encourages people to post music stuff, which they otherwise might not," has always seemed to me to be a rationalization because Max will not change to a permanent identifying system for log-ons, as most mudcatters have been requesting for many, many years. Max could solve all arguments related to the problems with GUEST. People with an edit button, including the Chief, can not solve problems related to GUEST except by deletions or changes, which causes more problems of a different nature. They have not been given any real power to fix the milieu. Thus it continues. Joe, you can make temporary changes forever, but until Max gives you real power to effect the milieu by giving you the power to change to a permanent log-in system, your fixes are bandaids. I think it is very unfortunate that Max will not do it or let you do it. How else can we make Max realize he must change to a permanent log-in system? Until Max steps up to the plate on this it will not change. Max, when are you going to change to a permanent log in system? The time is over for personal freedom on this site. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:56 AM (#1927371) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Good, make a point about the messenger so no one gets the message jeff. Typical Official Mudcat Response (tm). |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:57 AM (#1927372) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Emma B OK this is factual and probably too boring as opposed to the easy "sound bite" government by cabinet The UK was, during the period 1939-45 governed by a cabinet led from 1940 onwards by Churchill as Prime Minister. "In theory, Britain has a Cabinet government. This according to current constitutional theory, is where the Cabinet meets as a body to discuss issues relevant to the country. It discusses various points of view, weighs up arguments concerning whatever is being discussed and comes to a decision that is backed by the majority of the Cabinet. As such it becomes government policy, if supported in the House of Commons, and has the legitimacy of majority Cabinet support behind it. This means that decisions have collective responsibility behind them" Churchill and his deputy Attlee and the other members of the war cabinet "won the war" |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:59 AM (#1927374) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,Captain Ginger Oh, and Max, while you're about it, I want a 1991 300TDi Land Rover defender 90. Good condition, mind, and no rust on the chassis or bulkhead. Ideally in grey. With a winch. And be quick about it! No shilly-shallying trying to earn a living to feed the youngsters or any of that woolly liberal nonsense. Come on, I'm waiting....(taps foot in irritation). *tsk* it really does seem that you get what you pay for round here, eh? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 11:04 AM (#1927379) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,General George S. Patton Churchill was nothing but a drunken egotistical pussy who couldn't give and never gave a goddamn order in his life. He never won the war and without us Americans there would be no goddamn Britain. Goddamit, in life it's eat or be eaten. Kill or be killed. The British were to kind and couldn't and didn't give orders. All they could do was give goddamned suggestions, that's why they needed us Americans to get the goddamned war finished. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 11:07 AM (#1927384) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,Captain Ginger From: GUEST,General George S. Patton Oh cripes, the ego has landed! |
|
05 Jan 07 - 11:09 AM (#1927385) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: John MacKenzie This was started as an open forum, and the rules were non existent, then it grew, and it attracted idiots who abused the free and open nature of the site. Rules had to be made to deal with the idiots, and as the number of idiots grew so did the rules. One of the biggest idiots is now conducting a self defeating campaign for no deletions or moderation, like it used to be, [apparently]. I can see him as a midwife, busily trying to push a baby back up some poor woman's birth canal. Giok |
|
05 Jan 07 - 11:10 AM (#1927386) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,General George S. Patton A goddamned Limey Land Rover. Jesus Christ the sons of bitches Limeys can't even make a godddamned proper Jeep. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 11:15 AM (#1927391) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: katlaughing Sins, thanks for filling us in. I'd missed that particular *wish* of CH's. Puts things in a much graver light. {{{{{HUGS}}}}}} |
|
05 Jan 07 - 11:18 AM (#1927392) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,Captain Ginger Of course, some of us remember when this was all fields, with just the little Xerox shed over there... |
|
05 Jan 07 - 11:35 AM (#1927402) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Emma B Xerox?? I remember the old Gestetner :) |
|
05 Jan 07 - 11:38 AM (#1927406) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: jeffp In my day, if you wanted a copy, you had to wait for Brother Laurence to get around to it. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 11:52 AM (#1927425) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: number 6 I remember hollerith cards getting jammed in the hopper. biLL |
|
05 Jan 07 - 11:54 AM (#1927429) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,Captain Ginger Pah, in the oral tradition if you wanted a copy you'd let the bard get your daughter pregnant! |
|
05 Jan 07 - 11:56 AM (#1927432) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: number 6 Geeeeez ..... what if you didn't have a daughter? biLL |
|
05 Jan 07 - 11:56 AM (#1927434) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: JennyO And we walked twenty miles to the schoolhouse Barefoot, uphill both ways, Through blizzards in summer and winter Back in the good old days. Back when Fortran was not even One-tran And the abacus? Only a toy! And we did our computing in primordial darkness When I was a boy. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 11:58 AM (#1927437) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: number 6 WATFIV ??? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 01:01 PM (#1927494) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Bill D "Of course, some of us remember when this was all fields, with just the little Xerox shed over there..." Johnny-come-lately! I remember when there was only 5" floppies, hand delivered or snail-mailed by Dick Greenhaus. ....(for those who complain about 'management'....remember that this is all done by The early shenannigans of .gargoyle and 'The True Conscience of Mudcat' (look it up!) made Max seek help. There are obvious technical issues with being as free & open as possible to allow strangers to drop by and at the same time, controlling spam & hateful and obnoxious postings. No matter WHAT is done, it will be a compromise: "You can please some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time....but...." Mudcat has done an amazing job so far, and when Jeff(Pene Azul) and Max say "it will get better", I am willing to bet it will. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 01:11 PM (#1927506) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Amos Acronym Definition WATFIV Waterloo Fortran IV Number6, why invoke th ename of an old computer language? A |
|
05 Jan 07 - 01:17 PM (#1927511) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: number 6 Why not. biLL |
|
05 Jan 07 - 02:42 PM (#1927581) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,Quoth the Raven Words to live by in online flame wars: "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." "Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves." "I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel." For Shambles: "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." On forum changes to make things better: "Take care to get what you like or you will be forced to like what you get" For Max's Management Team: "Censure acquits the raven, but pursues the dove." |
|
05 Jan 07 - 03:08 PM (#1927602) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: gnu "Censure acquits the raven, but pursues the dove." Excellent!!! |
|
05 Jan 07 - 03:33 PM (#1927615) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: number 6 Outstanding Raven! Thanks for that post. biLL |
|
05 Jan 07 - 04:23 PM (#1927656) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall When the dust settles and all opinions are in, the fact remains that this is Max's baby and he will make the changes he deems necessary. Plus, he can not be bullied. Why waste your time pissing against the wind? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 04:34 PM (#1927668) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Peace If that's the case, then what is the purpose of this thread? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 04:38 PM (#1927671) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: John MacKenzie It keeps the Guests busy |
|
05 Jan 07 - 04:47 PM (#1927678) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Giok, the guests today have noticed that you are doing your very best today to try and bait us. Keep up the good work. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 04:48 PM (#1927680) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Jeri Some people just feel empowered by pissing in the wind. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 04:53 PM (#1927688) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Bert Amos, you shouldn't say 'why invoke' you should say 'what for'. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 04:53 PM (#1927690) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Jeri Seriously, if Joe could crack down like he wants, it would be a good thing. I think that some structural changes to Mudcat will be needed though before any attempt to limit nastiness can be effective. Looking forward to the day when kendall 'won't have to' react. (good one) |
|
05 Jan 07 - 05:24 PM (#1927720) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST You are former military, right Jeri? So thinking the best cure comes from a supremely powerful authority, and is done "for our own good" is rather how you've been conditioned to think, isn't it? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 05:31 PM (#1927728) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Jeri No, Janet. I believe if there are going to be new rules, there has to be an effective way to enforce them. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:07 PM (#1927756) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,Joe Offer (at the Women's Center) Yeah, it would be nice to have more technical tools to help us control some of the problems (and we're working on developing them), but we're still idealistic about this and would like to believe that people can control themselves. I know our culture dictates that people should do anything that somebody else can't stop them from doing - but that hardly leads to an ideal society. I'd like ot think that our community can be better than that. It would be far better if people here could voluntarily enjoy and respect each other. -Joe Offer- |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:07 PM (#1927757) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Indeed, on that point all reasonable people would agree. But if management hasn't ever effectively enforced the current rules, why would you believe adding to or replacing the current set of rules will be any more effective? If I recall correctly, you and I also agree the real issue at the heart of the matter is too many posters choosing not to exercise self-control over their responses to what others say. Membership doesn't fix that, and nor will a new set of rules. The only cure for the problem that plagues this forum is effective moderation. We keep hearing that "it is coming" at the same time that the current moderation becomes more and more repressive, and less and less effective. So maybe you don't just have a rule problem, eh? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 06:32 PM (#1927773) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Bill D "Why waste your time pissing against the wind?" well, then you can complain.."My God...I'm getting drenched in piss!" ------------------------------------------------------------------ "... if management hasn't ever effectively enforced the current rules, ..." The point has been made before that enforcement requires knowing what is happening...THAT requires either someone(s) with moderator status reading everything, or having problems reported...then sorting out whether the rules have, in fact been abused (often a grey area). Membership would 'improve' control simply by having fewer abuses when folks know their membership might be in jeopardy...(and knowing that PMs are available to those they offend.) Nothing can totally eliminate human weakness & temper tantrums and bad taste...but accountability can make some think twice. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 07:58 PM (#1927826) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: katlaughing I thought they kept pissing to see which direction the wind was blowing in...but it usually ends up drenching them as BillD noted.:-) |
|
05 Jan 07 - 08:16 PM (#1927837) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Bert ...it would be nice to have more technical tools to help us... All it needs is sense enough to ignore any message that you don't like. Failing that, it would need a program to ban the usual suspects, they post many times more often than the trolls who delight in arousing them. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:44 PM (#1927908) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Rapparee An armed society is a polite society. Let's bring back dueling. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:48 PM (#1927910) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Peace With axes. |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:49 PM (#1927911) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: bobad How about banjos? |
|
05 Jan 07 - 10:56 PM (#1927915) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,knotgrain I don't know how polite slapping another's face with gloves was. Now those who wish to can slap from a safe distance via the Internet. |
|
06 Jan 07 - 12:54 AM (#1927973) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Lin in Kansas Oh good grief! You all do realize, don't you, that without this forum you would have no place to so enjoy posting all this pompous, useless bullshit? Why don't a few of you go look up the lyrics to a song request, eh? And make yourselves useful instead of strictly ornamental? And BTW, Joe and Max, hooray! No more Clinton Hammond abrasiveness, obnoxiousness, and completely antisocial behavior. Shambles, take note, eh? (My opinion only, of course. Just like everyone else's posts on this site.) Lin |
|
06 Jan 07 - 01:02 AM (#1927980) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST Upbraiding the pompous is still an opportunity to drop names, isn't it. So who's pompous? |
|
06 Jan 07 - 01:04 AM (#1927981) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST I do take umbrage with "make yourselves useful instead of strictly ornamental". As our sometime guest ADG suggests, 'tis far better to make oneself useless as well as ornamental. |
|
06 Jan 07 - 02:40 AM (#1928000) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Joe Offer It sure was a windy day today..... |
|
06 Jan 07 - 03:26 AM (#1928009) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Captain Ginger Upbraiding the pompous is still an opportunity to drop names, isn't it. So who's pompous? Undoubtedly I am. And I'm sure there are a few more on the edge of the lamplight. Young Terry 'Teribus' has a surprising degree of precocious pomposity for a teenager. |
|
06 Jan 07 - 09:43 AM (#1928186) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Captain Ginger And hurrah. thrice hurrah for that. Now listen Shambles, you've got nice a shiny new thread to play with, free from whinges, bellyaches and the like. Let's try to keep it that way, so don't go messing it up, there's a good chap. |
|
06 Jan 07 - 10:42 AM (#1928231) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Amos Wow -- in my disinterest I had thought there was ONE lengthy thread with all that crap in it. Now I find out there were, at one time or another, THREE such threads. I am impressed by the sheer volume of digestive throughput, but do not find the gain in quality justifies the perseverance required. A |
|
06 Jan 07 - 10:59 AM (#1928251) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST How dare you, Amos! Some of us real guests posted to those threads! Did any full-time or part-time members post to them? What should we make of those who are Dr. Jekyll above the line and Mr. Hyde beneath it? |
|
06 Jan 07 - 11:59 AM (#1928322) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Rapparee They're bipolar? |
|
06 Jan 07 - 12:12 PM (#1928340) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Captain Ginger What should we make of those who are Dr. Jekyll above the line and Mr. Hyde beneath it? That they drink brightly coloured, smoking liquids from retorts, change shape hideously and hairily and go "mwah-hah-hah" quite a lot, I would think. |
|
06 Jan 07 - 01:53 PM (#1928421) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall That's them! I'd know them anywhere! |
|
06 Jan 07 - 02:16 PM (#1928451) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Bill D *giggle* |
|
14 Jan 07 - 09:25 AM (#1936134) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall I don't know if Patton ever really said all that about the Brits, but there is one thing he left out. It was the British that invented the tank, the machine that made you famous, you war monger! |
|
14 Jan 07 - 09:35 AM (#1936142) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,General George S. Paton Yeah I said all those things. "We can always learn from each other" I also said that. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 10:40 AM (#1936171) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: wysiwyg Can't hold this back any longer-- when we're sitting at our puders, don't we have the crack down automatically? Sorry if somebuddy beat me to it. Captain Ginger, are you a cat? ~Susan |
|
14 Jan 07 - 12:46 PM (#1936303) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Bert It was Patton who couldn't TAKE orders and left The British troops to die at Arnhem while he went off on his own (ego) trip towards the Rhine. And Ike didn't have the balls to do anything about it. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 12:50 PM (#1936306) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Paul from Hull Much of that blame actually falls on Omar Bradley too Bert, as he was Pattons superior. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 12:51 PM (#1936309) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Captain Ginger Me a cat? Maybe in the sense of hep cat, cool cat or jumpin' cat, but otherwise just the two legs and no tail. Got a few whiskers, though. And if I'm standing to type, what's with the crack down? |
|
14 Jan 07 - 12:53 PM (#1936311) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Paul from Hull ....the Falaise Gap was also significant, in that a Panzer Division encountered at Arnhem wasa one of those that escaped from the Falaise pocket. Again, Pattons fault. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 01:46 PM (#1936356) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: wysiwyg I just thought "Captain Ginger" would be a great cat's name, like a ginger-cat in a superhero disguise. Nothing personal. ~S~ |
|
14 Jan 07 - 04:09 PM (#1936498) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,General George S. Patton Blame Arnhem on that egotistical son of a bitch Montgomery. That plan was a god damned failure right from the beginning. God Damn it, if I wasn't serving under Bradley and if Ike would listened to me I would have taken my Third army over the Rhine and right into downtown Berlin by September 1944. God Damn it! They were all a bunch of whiney whoosies. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 04:17 PM (#1936507) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,Omar Bradley Now, George- you know that if you had done that, we'd have upset the Russians even more, and Lord knows what we'd have to have given up in the peace talks! And besides, our supply lines couldn't have supplied you with fuel fast enough. You'd have run out and been sitting ducks for little German boys with grenades. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 04:23 PM (#1936512) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Paul from Hull Ah, George, George, George...you'll forgive me for not using your rank, but I never felt you deserved it.... Its all very well being 1st in Berlin (if you'd ever got quite that far) but not if Jerry had manage to consolidate again behind you, eh? Your version of Blitzkreig would just have gone the same way as the German one... |
|
14 Jan 07 - 04:28 PM (#1936520) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: GUEST,General George S. Patton That's the problem Omar, you always tried to appease the god damned limeys. If we had some god damned leaders during that war there wouldn't have been a supply problem. And by the way Bert it was the XXX limey Armoured Corp that failed to deliver back in Operation Market Garden. God damned limey Armoured Corp officers couldn't drive a god damned tank if they tried, let alone lead an attack. Operation Market Garden, only that son of a bitch Montgomery would name a god damned battle by that name. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 04:35 PM (#1936529) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Little Hawk Boy, that sure sounds like George Patton all right! LOL! George, I think you were on the right track, but I also think that the real powerbrokers behind the scenes didn't want that war over as soon as you did. No sir. They had a lot of lucrative military contracts to fill and a schedule to follow. Thus they nixed your excellent blitzkrieg plan and went for the slow battle of attrition, advance on a broad front nonsense...thus lengthening the war by a year, killing a lot more American soldiers, and making a hell of a lot of money for the arms industry. That's my theory. As for your analysis of Montgomery? Spot on. The man only once risked a battle he might not necessarily win, and it was Market-Garden. He lost it. I don't think he was a very good general, I just think he was a hell of a good organizer of an army's logistical supply chain, which is how he overwhelmed the Germans in North Africa. Given adequate supplies of his own, Rommel would have wiped Montgomery out without even straining himself. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 04:38 PM (#1936531) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Captain Ginger Absolutely. Monty was an arse, but a canny self-publicist. His reputation was built entirely on the work of others. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 05:10 PM (#1936556) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Paul from Hull LH, the 'groundwork' for El Alamein & the Desert Army's advance that followed it had all been done BEFORE Monty's appointment, Generals Ritchie & Cunningham. Lack of success against the Afrika Korps before that had caused Churchill to 'sack' a succession of Generals... Montgomery just happened to be the one in place when the 8th Army was strong enough to get the upper hand & keep it. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 05:11 PM (#1936558) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Paul from Hull Dead right Ginge. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 05:48 PM (#1936596) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Bert Both Monty AND Patton were primadonnas. They both submitted plans to Ike which should have been based on the full support of all allied troops. Ike chose Monty's plan and didn't have the guts to ensure that it was supported by Patton as well. He was the one really responsible for the defeat at Arnhem. If he had either chosen Patton's plan and forced Monty to support it, or if he had forced Patton to support Monty's plan (Which HE had chosen) then He would have stood a much better chance of victory. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 07:15 PM (#1936691) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: The Fooles Troupe As I seem to remember the REAL STORY behind many WWII battles - won and lost - often was deliberately obscured at the time, and only many years later when 'the official Secrets' were declassified, did anything like the real facts start to emerge. In Africa, for instance, the fact that Enigma had been compromised meant that the real problem was NOT that it would have been so easy to use the decrypted information (and they did use it to help cripple Rommel's supply line - but the Germans began to become suspicious, hence ensued much intentional misdirecting subterfuge!), but the real risk that too much use of that info in the SHORT TERM would cause the Germans to change their security, thus losing the British the LONG TERM advantage of being able to catch changes in strategy and tactics, rather than win a few small battles. there thus had to be a trade off of accepting more causalities in the short term, in the hope of a better long term outcome of the war in general. Also, it seems that Rommel lost his own message interception and decrypting team, captured by the british. It was also useful propaganda to allow both ethe Enemy and the Allied public to believe stories like Monty's invincibility, the same as the Germans played up Rommel... As for Patton and other starring generals (sorry for the pun!) in WWII, you Americans and others ignorant of History just might like to check out just what they were doing BETWEEN WWI & WWII, when the unemployed returned US WWI soldiers marched on the White House, and were camped out. So just WHO disobeyed Presidential orders and terrorised and murdered American citizens then... :-) |
|
14 Jan 07 - 07:25 PM (#1936699) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Alba 200 |
|
14 Jan 07 - 07:36 PM (#1936706) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Little Hawk Paul from Hull - You are absolutely correct. Monty was simply lucky enough to be there at the right time. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 07:38 PM (#1936709) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall General Douglas MacArthur. The number ONE prima donna. |
|
14 Jan 07 - 07:40 PM (#1936712) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Peace Yeah. No "I'll be back" with him. Good English all the way: "I shall return." |
|
14 Jan 07 - 08:09 PM (#1936748) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Paul from Hull In fact Little Hawk, its just popped ito my head that Montgomery got the job by default...the General due to take over was killed in an aircrash. Cant remember who it was, & cant be more than... hmmm.. 90% chance I'm remembering right anyway, & I'm not going to look it up right now, I'm off to bed! |
|
15 Jan 07 - 12:47 AM (#1936908) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: Bert MacArthur, Monty, Patton. All good choices for the job. One would never choose a sane person to go and kill people. That's probably why poor old Bradley never got much recognition. |
|
15 Jan 07 - 01:40 AM (#1936940) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: The Fooles Troupe ... but he was a good fighting veh.... oops... |
|
15 Jan 07 - 09:16 AM (#1937185) Subject: RE: BS: The crack down From: kendall Right on, Bert. Those were good men for that job in that time. I wouldn't want any of them as a neighbor. |