Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Feb 05 - 06:35 PM

Nice joke wolfgang.

It does remind me though of an incident that had me terrified, I was in a car travelling up the M6 (I think) heading for Leeds, We missed the turn of and our driver decided to reverse to the junction. Travelling backwards toward cars probalby doing 80mph (our limit is 70 but it tends to be excedeed) is scarey.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Feb 05 - 05:44 PM

Thanks for refreshing this thread. The following is probably the same joke. It is about the same age.

There was the driver stopped for going the wrong way down a one-way-street. When this fact was pointed out - he replied - that he was only going one way!

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Feb 05 - 04:47 PM

Just for a change, let me tell you a German joke, but I have to explain a bit before telling:
(1) In German, 'one' and 'a' are expressed by the same word, 'ein'. (2) I don't know how you call a driver driving on the wrong side of the motorway, we call him a 'ghost driver'. Now the joke:

Urgent traffic warning in the radio: "On the motorway M1 northbound between Exits 37 and 39 there's a/one ghost driver coming ahead. Please do not overtake and drive carefully in the left lane. We'll announce it if the incident is over."
One driver muttering to himself: "One??? Hundreds!"

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 05:18 PM

Well Rambles, most of my posts are either musical or tech related as I like tech but yes, sure I do question your sanity on this one.

One you may not have spotted is that Mick and I have different feelings towards Max. Yet we have the same conclusion about you.

My relationship with Mick is such that a CD can be exchanged without worrying about whether one or other of us like or dislike Max. In the grand scale of things, it is nothing. Mick may think there are errors in my jugdgement and has pointed out, even publicaly that he dissagrees with me on some issues but it doesn't get away from me holding some respect for him.

I've had dissagreements with Joe and with Jeri too but there is nothing in anything that has happened here that would cease to make either of them welcome visitors here should fate take them to N Norfolk. That is probably my biggest gripe with you BTW. When you implicate the Clones, you are attacking people I still consider as friends.

Even with Max, in spite of rows, If I was face to face with him, I'd probably buy him a pint, and maybe even try to see if there was a way of a better relationship that there is now. Probably unresolvable but there is nothing in my life that would make me want to attack him for your dislike of a system.

The only person with a problem on these issuses remains you and you are incapable of answering why you don't have a discussion with someone you respect on issues only he can control.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 03:59 PM

The whole quote as follows-

It must be obvious that whatever Max's purpose or intention in opening this part of his website to the public - if our forum is mostly used in practice by some individuals to pass judgement on the sanity, motives and general worth of other individuals - based only on the words of their postings - rather than ignoring obvious provocation and this practice is encouraged - there is going to be a lot of public conflict.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 12:53 PM

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 03:13 AM

It must be obvious that whatever Max's purpose or intention in opening this part of his website to the public - if our forum is mostly used in practice by some individuals

The bold, underline was added by me to so you wouldn't miss it.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 12:42 PM

That IS a good one-- asking for PMs instead of posts.

1. Volunteers who choose to be anonymous would be outed.

2. If you don't like the way this thread's going, Shambles, gee-- "just don't open it."

And no I am not a volunteer posting as a guest. I just don't care for you to drag my name into your habit of endless quotes upon quotes.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 12:32 PM

Rambles, you just don't get it do you? I don't have a personal issue with Max on this a) because I like the current setup and b) I don't care enough to have a fallout over policy even if I did. and c) I prefer the situation where I can post peacfully and any feelings are left out of it.

A situation with Max and I was reached but it is not one that needs dirty linen ironing out here or one that needs you taking sides. Max is quite capable of arguing for himself as I am.

If you want a positive in all this: Here you go. I think Max did a good thing in introducing the close button here - I don't want fights anyway, but even if I did, I'm not about to criticise him or ask you to do so on my behalf over something I approve of.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 12:18 PM

If any one wishes to continue to make personal attacks upon, to call me names or conduct conversations with others about me - can they please do this in the Personal Messages that Max has provided? This would prevent them from keep refreshing a thread on a subject that they obviously do not wish to make any positive contribution to and which their posting will inflict upon everyone else?

Just for the record and if anyone should care - I don't think that Max is an arsehole.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 11:15 AM

Wow famous at last. Rambles has got a quote in with my name.

My dearest Rambles, it is no secret that these days that my relationship with Max is one I think adequately described as tolerant but mutual contempt for each other.

I have no complaints about the current censorship policy and have no problems with the set up. You remain the one with the problems but fail to take them up at the level needed to do anything about them.

If I wanted to call Max an arsehole, I would and if he wanted to call me an asshole, he would. That would not however resolve what is your complaint.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 10:37 AM

RE: Mudcat, Please organise these threads!         10 Feb 04

GUEST,Jon is right, there are many differing opinions here at the Mudcat. For instance, Jon's opinion is that his site is a "rival" to Mudcat. My opinion is that Jon is flattering himself with such status, and that he's an asshole. Yet despite our difference of opinion, the Mudcat clicks and hums on its merry way.>snip<

Cynically yours,

Max

I am still waiting for the evidence to be provided to demonstrate the accusation made that I claim any form of ownwership or refer to this as 'our website'. I make the very important distinction between Max's website and the public discussion forum that he has kindly provided for all of us on this website - and confine my invited views to this area of operation.

I will also leave others to judge who is attempting to bully who.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 08:30 AM

Doubtless with the chorus.

I'm a rambler, I'm a rambler, in shambless' way....

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 08:14 AM

Rambles ..... I like that Jon. It is a perfect fit.

Rambling Roger ..... I think I could write a song with a name like that. It would have the same inane verse repeated over and over 500 times.

Mick

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 07:08 AM

Rambles, I don't know what the rules are now but when I was one, I was one who preffered to be known as a volunteer. Jeri is another who has made herself known through choice.

It is possible that such choice does not even exist now - like it or not, volunteers don't set the rules, they operate under the rules that ultimately are set by Max. All we know is it appears that both Jeff and Joe prefer it that volunteers are not named.

Whatever, while Max has the rule that volunteers can be anonymous, I will consider you spineless for not taking the issue up with him, but instead trying to bully them into naming themselves.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 06:51 AM

It matters little if I had said this - for it would just be my view - politely expressed. But if I an to be personally attacked (by a known volunteer) for expressing this view - perhaps some evidence of me saying that 'this is our website' can be provided?

This the part of Max's website that he has very kindly given over for all of the public's contributions. This is our forum and Max at least does appear to try his very best to always honour this. There must be serious question if this current forum arrangement (with its procupation with 'what 'we' allow') - as it works in practice - does honour this. Perhaps it could be reviewed and a lighter touch be applied?

And perhaps this adversarial defence - to any possible criticism of all this imposed judgement upon contributors by anonymous volunteers - be change to a more useful one?

Those that really need protection are the posters who find their perfectly acceptable contributions have been deleted - against their knowledge and wishes - along with an entire thread by someone who chooses to judge other posters - but remain unknown.

Volunteers appear to have many choices - I just suggest that choosing to remain anonymous whilst able to delete the invited contributions of others members of the public - is not one that is open to them. Or an honourable one in these circumstances. Nor is setting the example of undertaking personal attacks, inciting others to do this or of making it acceptable to 'make fun' of the invited contributions of others from this responsible position.

No - it is true that our volunteers are not on trial here. But it would seem that the rest of the public are. If personal attacks are to be thought not acceptable - perhaps our volunteers can be seen not to be indulging in them and the public can be set the example of how to post responsibly?

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 08:04 PM

Shambles continues to use the term "our website" as if he had ownership. He, nor any of us, have any ownership. Max owns the website. Period. Shambles, if he had any intention of really accomplishing something, would acknowledge that. But of course, he doesn't have any honorable intention. He simply likes to hear the sound of his own voice.

Mick

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 07:50 PM

"The excuse that folk were only following orders has been tried before and is now finally discredited. This excuse given - (even by those who volunteered and only when finally brought to account) - was that they had no choice to undertake the things they did. Under some circumstances - this excuse may have some weight - but Max is not threatening going to shoot his volunteers."

Bollocks Shambles. Max could stop the volunteers - your waffle can't.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 06:19 PM

Subject: RE: Deleted post
From: GUEST,unrepentant clone - PM
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 12:03 PM

Ad-I deleted it. It was only 15 minutes after it had been posted, and I was not sure anyone else had even seen it. It was posted in the music threads, was obviously copied and pasted, and not only had no commentary to explain why you posted it, it was offensive and inflammatory.

Still, I should have left a note saying what I had done and why. I had a phone call and totally forgot. Apologies for that.

We allow a lot of non-music discussion on lots of things, but it just struck me as an attempt to fan flames. That is only the 2nd post I have deleted in several months. Obviously, this volunteer moderator game is not an exact science.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=69253&messages=19

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 05:57 PM

Of course there is nothing stopping our anonymous volunteers from being doubly anonymous and posting as a guest. It has certainly happened...........

Or perhaps I am the only non-volunteer poster left on the forum?

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 03:20 PM

Of course the volunteers are responsible. TO MAX, not to any individual, and not about policies!

If your complaint boils down to the fact that you feel one or more individual volunteers has been rude to you, take it up with their boss!

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 12:29 PM

If you follow the line of reasoning put forward by some posters in this thread - no one - except the person on overall charge of a nation is responsible for any of their actions. This idea is attractive to some and we have seen the end result of this too many times.

The excuse that folk were only following orders has been tried before and is now finally discredited. This excuse given - (even by those who volunteered and only when finally brought to account) - was that they had no choice to undertake the things they did. Under some circumstances - this excuse may have some weight - but Max is not threatening going to shoot his volunteers.

I think the editing/censorship policy has got too heavy here and we would be better off with the rules being more relaxed.

If indeed these are the hard-and-fast-set-forever forum rules (which I doubt) - they can always be subject to a review if they look like being counter-productive.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 09:11 AM

"If it generally thought that posters should be prepared to own their views - is it really too much to expect that all volunteers are seen to own their own actions? Perhaps if they are not so prepared - the abilty to judge and impose editing action upon others should not be given?"

Shambles, let's try again very nicely:

Do volunteers set the rule that they can act anonymously or does Max set the rule?

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 08:21 AM

It should have been established through all the anti-guest nonsense that first of all people posting anonymously is not generally popular by other posters - even if when this is clearly thought OK by Max.

Thankfully we do seem to have moved-on a little from this one and generally recognise that what name is used - is matter for the poster.

Also it is clear that when posting as a guest - folk will receive a lot of criticism directed at guests that they may not have earned. For there are many reasons why folk do not choose to become members or use their real (or even a consistent) name.

The same is true of the word 'volunteer'. When I question the actions of one volunteer - this tends to be seen by them as questioning (or even a personal attackon) them all.

A defensive reaction to this may be understandable and for all I know - all of the posters to this thread could be one of our anonymous volunteers! If they were - their views expressed here may be seen in a different light?

I really think that anonymous volunteers who are able and encouraged to judge, delete and close entire threads - is over the top and as it is never going to be generally popular and the results of volunteers defending this practice is so devisive - perhaps a review can take place?

If it generally thought that posters should be prepared to own their views - is it really too much to expect that all volunteers are seen to own their own actions? Perhaps if they are not so prepared - the abilty to judge and impose editing action upon others should not be given?

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 06:20 AM

Lucky I caught this - it nearly slipped off the bottom of the list.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 06:03 AM

Subject: Why was this thread closed twice?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24-Aug-04 - 09:15 AM

Why was it thought necessary for the following thread to be closed, not once but twice?

Now if this is stting a 'heavy' tone - perhaps a word can be found for the tone of some of the subsequent responses?

But the tone was set by the action taken. Imposing judgement on the perfectly acceptable and invited contributions of many posters by deleting or closing a thread without their knowledge or permission - I feel is - always far too heavy.

Joe used to set a good example and I fully supported this. Then using the stick was thought to be preferable example to the use of the carrot. I would simply like to see less of the divisive use of the stick and for folk who volunteer for positions of responsibilty to accept that the example they set for others to follow - must always be above question.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 11:09 AM

Sometimes people are trying to joke with you and lighten up the heavy tone you set, Shambles-- not attacking you. I bet this is especially true of the volunteers whose posts you have quoted so many times.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 10:50 AM

Sorry to interupt - but OK

I think the editing/censorship policy has got too heavy here and we would be better off with the rules being more relaxed.

Censorship on Mudcat

The evidence for some of the personal attacks upon me and who they are from - are here. If I am to accused of attacking people - perhaps some evidence of this can be first provided? For I think even my harshest regular critics may at least give me a little credit for not responding (and in kind) to a lot of obvious provocation.

Folk may not agree with my views and I may well have upset some well-intentioned volunteer by refering to volunteers and some their actions - but this was not the intention and I have no way of knowing who these people may be. Apart from those who make no secret of the example they set by mounting personal attacks and encouraging others to do this - from their position of privilige.

Some of these anonymous volunteers may even be among those posting and refreshing this thread? Who knows?

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jeri
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 09:23 AM

Jon, in lieu of any ANSWERS from Shambles, I'd guess he's tried and failed to force (by a 'Shock and Awe' campaign of 'explanation' and 'debate') Max to jump through hoops. It was probably a much more one-sided variety of 'ineffective' than his crusade here.

The control stuff then comes out in the forum, aimed at secondary and tertiary targets, to no particular goal. Jon, you said, "...or his real motives are nothing to do with what he says they are", but if he's ever actually said what they are, I haven't seen it here. This leaves him free to change them whenever it suits.

Anyway, I'm just agreeing with you. This has turned into one of those things like when people go to a concert to see how drunk or stoned a performer is, or how bizarre he'll act, and don't really care about the music. At first, people will continue to go because there just<might still be an occasional flash of brilliance. But eventually the flashes stop and it's the spectacle, and only the spectacle, that draws.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 04:02 AM

Of course it is obvious that the forum was opened to allow contributions - there would not be any point in a forum otherwise would there?

What is not obvious is why Shambles words his posts the way he does. If he was to say something like

"I think the editing/censorship policy has got too heavy here and we would be better off with the rules being more relaxed" and opened up a debate on those terms, while I'd opt not to join in, I'd not really have a problem with him.

But Shambles does not do that he has to throw "that Max has invited" and to paraphrase "the actions of evil volunteers under the control of witchfinder Joe Offer" in.

When he does that, I only see what he doing is attacking people for doing no more than their job. His argument becomes nonsensical because a) If he credits Max for control, he should also credit Max for control of his "employees" and b) as has been shown the person he is blaming for the closure of threads was not even the first person to set such an example in the forum.

It remains a mystery to me why Shambles, having gone on here does not take the issue up with Max who has the control. It gets even weirder when Shambles illustrates total respect for Max - that to me would give even more reason to discuss the matter with him. Either he is completely tapped, or his real motives are nothing to do with what he says they are but a desire to attack someone - probably Joe.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 03:13 AM

It must be obvious that whatever Max's purpose or intention in opening this part of his website to the public - if our forum is mostly used in practice by some individuals to pass judgement on the sanity, motives and general worth of other individuals - based only on the words of their postings - rather than ignoring obvious provocation and this practice is encouraged - there is going to be a lot of public conflict.

If (as at present) all this personal judgement is encouraged by the example generally set - perhaps and before it is too late - a different example can NOW be set and encouraged? Especially by those who would feel themselves entitled to pass judgement on other posters and feel qualified to impose their personal judgement upon their fellow contributors?

People post what they will and it up to everyone else to accept this as a fact beyond their control. Encouraging folk to make a subsequent fuss and demanding that a contribution be later removed because it may not be to their taste - will not alter the fact that it first appears but will simply bring attention to something that many would have been unaware of in the first place and would have died a natual death.

But what the current censorship does is to devide us, bring attention to them, lose perfectly acceptable contributions along with the (possibly) offending one and in the case of thread closures - prevents any positive contributions from altering the course of the thread.

If this thread was thought to be an offending one - just look at how many times it has been refreshed by folk simply making judgements of the threads worth. If there is no valid contribution to the issue made in the post - could it simply not be ignored?

I am and feel - despite many pointless efforts to make me feel less so - just as important as any other contributor and perhaps - unlike others - have no need to be ever thought more important than others.

But when you are reading anyone's contribution - perhaps they are at that time - the most important one or at least the views being expressed in that post are the most important? The choice having read it is simple - to respond to those views or to ignore the thread.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: harpgirl
Date: 17 Feb 05 - 12:19 AM

Well, I remember this hullabaloo! But now Garg's remarks in the thread about unemployment are downright caring! And someone has put the screws to Lep...I mean Martin. (Silly me, my mistake)

So much change since then. I hate change. I hate to lose the people we have lost. I'm glad Shambles is still being Shambles. I wish Rick was still being Rick. and little john and WW and okthen and JulieB, LrMOLE, Giac....and god knows who else...

The rest of you are still being yourselves, too. Good, Consider the alternative...

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 08:53 PM

*shrug*...because he feels like it, I guess...

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 08:46 PM

Yes Bill. we know that. The only point in this is that Max took actions as extreme as banning people before (to our knowledge) even closed a thread was achieved by Joe.

It's not Max that is under question but I for one want to know why Shambles questions such a minor detail as closing a thread and has a go at the clones when it is perfectly clear that their manager has even banned someone as "punishment".

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 08:31 PM

-gargoyle was banned temporarily for general naughtiness...Max later offered to re-instate him, but he chose not to leave himself open to PMs, as I understand it...at least he posted some ambiguous remarks about being 'afraid'...as far as I know, gargoyle can be a member if he chooses.
it's not really relevant to THIS topic, I think... but here is Max, saying that he WANTS everyone to have their say, as longs as they stay within reasonable bounds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

From: Max - PM
Date: 10 Mar 00 - 12:54 AM

OK, gargoyle, you got it. I tried to give your membership back months ago, but you apparently never got my message. Your tactics are crude, you are often inappropriate and rude, and I obviously cannot ever agree with you for the simple fear that anyone would think that your type of efforts could or should be effective, but you are undoubtedly a knowledgeable member of our community. My motive for your membership? People want to be able to talk to you… and as ambiguous as I may seem here, my sole function is to facilitate that… because that is what The Mudcat is all about.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Big Mick
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 08:17 PM

Because it makes him feel important to post here, even if it is the same thing over and over.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 06:24 PM

So Shambles, why aren't you taking this up with Max?

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 06:19 PM

Jon, as near as I can tell, the post of Max's that Shambles keeps quoting was in 1999, and Garg got banned later that year or in early 2000. I don't know if this thread was the first one closed or not, but it was closed ("retired") in Jan 00 - by Max. He closed this thread later the same day.

At the very least, this shows that Max adapted when people got serious about being nasty. It shows the closing of threads began with Max. I don't think he believed that level of nastiness would ever happen here when he wrote the post Shambles keeps quoting.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 05:58 PM

Because you have chosen to impose YOUR judgement on what Mudcat management has chosen to do. It's an infinite loop.

Max has chosen to open this part of his website for all the public's contributions - that includes us both.

I just post the view here I am invited to contribute. Expressing my wish that no one should ever feel qualified to impose their judgement and delete the contributions of others.

Bill I can't IMPOSE anything upon anyone - nor control anyone but my own posting - nor would I have any wish to. If this contribution is not to anyone else's taste - the very best judgement they can express here - is to sinply ignore it.....

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 04:48 PM

And another question: When did gargoyle get banned as a member? Assuming that happened (I can only go by what I've read), my feeling is that it would predate the no-rules bit.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 04:46 PM

well, Shambles...all I can say is that your argument works both ways.If I choose to respond to your responses, even if it's just to see my own opinions in print, I guess 'freedom' extends that far..*grin*

"Why would you wish to impose your judgement upon what I choose to do?"

Because you have chosen to impose YOUR judgement on what Mudcat management has chosen to do. It's an infinite loop.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 04:06 PM

Interesting Jeri. I hadn't been that observant.

It's quite sad really but you picked on a good example. Much of Shamble's reality is based around a statement that I doubt was ever intended to be taken quite as literaly as Shambles does even back in 1999, let alone now when needs might have changed.

Tell me something: I think the quoted post was just that bit before my time and you go back here a bit further than me... Would a direct personal attack on or threat towards another person have been tolerated even then?

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 02:31 PM

As to me being outvoted - this (also closed) thread does contain some votes.

POLL - stop flaming and abusive postings

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 02:19 PM

would it help if I said "pretty please...drop it?

Bill - one of the points arising from all of this - that should be slowy dawning upon you by now is that - if this thread or subject on this public disussion forum is not to your or anyone elses tastes - no one is forcing you to even open it. Why would you wish to impose your judgement upon what I choose to do?

You don't need all these layers of management or any anonymous volunteer to close or delete my views for you -if you don't open these threads - as far you are concerned - it is dropped.

It is really that simple. So you can stop trampling over the body of the long-dead messenger - calm down and leave me to it.....

If I plough on - what does it matter to you or anyone else? If I am outvoted - (which I actually doubt) this matters not either. For as I think you have pointed out (probably more than once) this is not a democracy. But this is my view - it is as valid as anyone elses and if I wish to express it - that is a matter for me.

Whether you respond or not - is a matter for you.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 01:15 PM

" However it follows that for anyone else to have approved the decision to delete - the deletion must have first been made."

yep, Shambles...that's the way I read it....and heartily approve! It has been made clear that deletions can be UN-deleted if not approved...but IF they were truly deserving of deletion (as most of them are) it were better to have the offending remarks removed THEN, instead of waiting for PM or email exchanges that might take days if Joe & Jeff were not right there 24/7.

If they decide to Undelete a thread or remark, it is a small inconvenience, and the mudelf will have gotten some guidance.

You don't like this procedure...*shrug*....if you read the totality of comments for the last few years, you are outvoted by about 50-1 by members who approve of management decisions over your kibitzing.

...but the mark of a dedicated gadfly is the refusal to give up when he is told NO! I guess you get a medal for perseverance, if not for perspective.....

would it help if I said "pretty please...drop it?"

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,~S~
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 12:35 PM

Was there a special sale on Troll-Food TV dinners????? Cuz ya'll are nuking it and serving it on up!

~S~

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jeri
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 11:55 AM

Jon, his Joe-pasting (Joe-bait) doesn't come close (number-wise) to his Max-pasting. You know, that message from 1999 about "Don't sweat the rules":

#1
#2
#3
#4
#4.5 (Just one line, so I'm not counting it as a full pt. See #7, later in thread.)
#5
#6
#7 (In the same thread Max originally posted it.)
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13

This9is9over9an98-month9period9starting9in9Jun9'04.9I9might9have9missed9some. 9Max9said9it9way9back9in 91999. 9Joe's9probably 9in92ndplace9and 9I9think9I'm9pretty 9far9back. <That9one9line I wrote about gung-ho volunteer9wannabes is probably<the most quoted. (And the one that really has me baffled as to why he quotes it.<

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 09:58 AM

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 11:09 AM

On second thought, I decided to delete the thread. It serves no purpose.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 09:50 AM

From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 06:16 PM

[part of post snipped]
Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:01 AM
Max, Jeff, and Joe were off doing other things today, and missed this one. It's a personal attack, and it isn't allowed. Since so many have posted to it, I guess I won't delete it - but I will close it. This is one of the "no-brainers" that the Clones should have deleted early on, no matter what Shambles thinks. Clones, don't let Shambles care you off - you're doing a good job, but you should have deleted this and told us about it.
Bob, I'm sorry this happened.
Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
-Joe Offer-


From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 09:35 AM
[part of post snipped]

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:01 AM
Max, Jeff, and Joe were off doing other things today, and missed this one. It's a personal attack, and it isn't allowed. Since so many have posted to it, I guess I won't delete it - but I will close it. This is one of the "no-brainers" that the Clones should have deleted early on, no matter what Shambles thinks. Clones, don't let Shambles care you off - you're doing a good job, but you should have deleted this and told us about it.
Bob, I'm sorry this happened.
Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 09:35 AM

Bill despite what you understand and publicly defend - it looks to be pretty clear from the following that our vounteers are encouraged by their 'chief admin person' to judge and impose editing action - BEFORE any approval is sought. Perhaps this is simply because any imposed action taken by any anonymous volunteer under any circumstances - will be automatically approved?

Or perhaps there are some examples where this imposed editing action has NOT been approved and the thread re-opened or the post put back?

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:01 AM
Max, Jeff, and Joe were off doing other things today, and missed this one. It's a personal attack, and it isn't allowed. Since so many have posted to it, I guess I won't delete it - but I will close it. This is one of the "no-brainers" that the Clones should have deleted early on, no matter what Shambles thinks. Clones, don't let Shambles care you off - you're doing a good job, but you should have deleted this and told us about it.
Bob, I'm sorry this happened.
Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 09:11 AM

There was another thread I asked Joe to review. I felt like it should be closed, but I had participated in it. Hence I felt as though someone else should make the decision. Mudelf

The imposed deletion referred to by our anonymous volunteer judge was done as they state - by using the general guidelines. However it follows that for anyone else to have approved the decision to delete - the deletion must have first been made.

The other thread referred to was different - the decision to impose deletion appears here to have been made by Joe. Perhaps our nameless volunteer is setting a better and more sensible example than their 'senior admin person' - in not imposing any editing action upon threads they themselves have contributed to?

Under these general guidelines (whatever they are) - I would assume that Joe's personal attacks and incitement for others to do this - should also have qualified for imposed editing action?