From Max: State of the Union Address

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 06 - 03:33 PM

Max unable to act and speak for himself?

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 18 May 06 - 03:30 PM

What part of "You too, should bid farewell" do you not understand?

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: jacqui.c
Date: 18 May 06 - 02:31 PM

Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Max - PM
Date: 11 May 06 - 10:43 PM

Shambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 18 May 06 - 02:21 PM

keep it going, it becomes clearer and clearer.

Keep the dayjob!

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 May 06 - 02:19 PM

OFFICIAL:
You have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer,...
CROWD:
Ooooh!
OFFICIAL:
...you are to be stoned to death.
CROWD:
Ahh!
MATTHIAS:
Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.'
CROWD:
Oooooh!
OFFICIAL:
Blasphemy!
He's said it again!
CROWD:
Yes! Yes, he did! He did!...
OFFICIAL:
Did you hear him?!
CROWD:
Yes! Yes, we did! We did!...

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 May 06 - 01:55 PM

Leenia, sorry if you already know this, but you need to have a PayPal account to use the system, it's not enough that Max has one.
Giok

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 18 May 06 - 01:53 PM

To get back to what is supposed to be the topic of this thread - my contribution is on the way.

I am not a Guest.

I suggest you put a box on the Forum page that says
--------------------------------------------------
Cost of running this Forum last month: $X.00.
Contributions last month:               $Y.00

Sent contributions to:

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

BTW, I tried to use Paypal, but it didn't work.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: jacqui.c
Date: 18 May 06 - 01:13 PM

Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Max - PM
Date: 11 May 06 - 10:43 PM

Shambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 18 May 06 - 12:42 PM

proves my point

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 May 06 - 12:39 PM

BRIAN:
Don't you, eh, pass judgment on other people, or you might get judged yourself.
COLIN:
What?
BRIAN:
I said, 'Don't pass judgment on other people, or else you might get judged, too.'
COLIN:
Who, me?
BRIAN:
Yes.
COLIN:
Oh. Ooh. Thank you very much.
BRIAN:
Well, not just you. All of you.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 May 06 - 12:37 PM

Yet you feel that anyone who questions you repeatedly is guilty of badgering or inhibiting.

No I don't.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 18 May 06 - 12:37 PM

Sorry Shambles, you aren't good enough to be a martyr, or a comedian for that matter.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 May 06 - 12:33 PM

BOB:
Well, what about Wodewick, then?
CROWD:
Yes! Welease Wodewick! Welease Wodewick!

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: lesblank
Date: 18 May 06 - 11:48 AM

Shambles - you have more gall than a Thankgiving turkey !! The question has been posed -"What part of """You should bid farewell""" do you not understand. My question is more succinct - What part of "STICK IT !!" don't you understand.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 18 May 06 - 11:33 AM

Shambles: What part of "You too should bid farewell" don't you understand?

Jerry

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 18 May 06 - 11:19 AM

"But in what arrogant way am I questioning anyone? "
"And we can once again return to encourging everyone to post to our forum - rather inhibiting posting by being encouraged to only post to judge each other's worth. "

Those two statements you made show your hypocrisy. You feel free to repeatedly question the owners of this site, even after they answer you. Yet you feel that anyone who questions you repeatedly is guilty of badgering or inhibiting.

You arrogance is shown when you repeatedly question after getting your answer.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: jacqui.c
Date: 18 May 06 - 11:03 AM

Subject: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Max - PM
Date: 11 May 06 - 10:43 PM

Shambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Snuffy
Date: 18 May 06 - 11:01 AM

But in what arrogant way am I questioning anyone?

Max said Shambles: .... You too, should bid farewell.

Which bit of that do you not understand?

Or do you arrogantly choose to ignore it?

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 May 06 - 10:31 AM

You have the definitive reply from the site owner - why are you so arrogant as to believe that you can question him in this way?

If that were true - I would not need to ask would I? Has the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team not asked our forum for suggestions?

But in what arrogant way am I questioning anyone?

Am I setting the example of publicly calling my fellow posters a buffoon, an idiot, an asshole a looney or worse? Am I encouraging other posters to join in such personal judgement and abuse?

Is it not arrogant to question why a fellow invited guest posts what they choose to? For you could of course just ignore my posts if you consider it arrogant to ask questions. Is it not arrogance or worse to post only to judge the worth and assume the worse of fellow posters you have never even met? Or is it now thought OK when it is certain easy targets who are safe to gang-up on and bully?

I have stopped posting to our forum once before - if others do not wish to share our forum with my posts they are free this time to go elswhere. Or if they really think the loss of one or two posters will make any real difference - they can carry on cluttering up our forum with posts asking for Max to come up with some terrible crime that I have committed to justify banning me....Then who will be blamed?

If my posts are now thought to be a distraction - they are because (some of our) moderators repeatedly and publicly encourage the division that has created the current situation. You may judge my reaction to this personally motivated special treatment be OTT - but is just the reaction that should be judged in isolation?

Should those who are supposed to be protecting you and I from abusive personal attacks be setting the example of ever indulging in such things? Being seen to defend all this - is what 'THIS MESS' currently is. Whatever posters are banned, whatever posts are deleted and whatever threads are closed - it will remain A MESS until it is addressed and corrected.

And we can once again return to encourging everyone to post to our forum - rather inhibiting posting by being encouraged to only post to judge each other's worth.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Bill D
Date: 18 May 06 - 10:09 AM

"Daddy, are we there yet? Huh? Huh? Why won't you answer me....Can we stop for a hamburger...pleeeease? When ARE we gonna get there, Daddy?"

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 May 06 - 09:45 AM

PILATE:
Whom would you have me welease?
BOB HOSKINS:
Welease Woger!
CROWD:
Yes! Welease Woger! Welease Woger! [laughing]
PILATE:
Vewy well. I shall welease Woger!
CROWD:
[cheering]
CENTURION:
Sir, uh, we don't have a 'Woger', sir.
PILATE:
What?
CENTURION:
Uh, we don't have anyone of that name, sir.
PILATE:
Ah. We have no 'Woger'!
CROWD:
Ohhhhh!

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 06 - 09:37 AM

The majority is beginning to speak. Ban Shambles. Let him and Martin Gibson open their own site. And, for good measure, throw in Clinton Hammond too.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 18 May 06 - 09:28 AM

"I was always told there was no harm in asking.......... "

You were lied to. There is harm in asking over and over, especially when you receive the answers to your questions and choose to ignore the answers. Unless you get an answer that you wish to hear, you keep asking the same question over and over and over and over....

Sure, you can keep saying that we can ignore your posts - but you keep cropping up and drifting threads and it is enough!   We DO and SHOULD question your worth and your posts when you interject like this.

I am still wondering why Shambles is allowed to post while Martin Gibson is banished. According to the original post, I thought we would see an end to all of this mess.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: GUEST,a member
Date: 18 May 06 - 09:24 AM

Patience is a virtue:

Subject: RE: How can we Help Max? (Moderated)
From: Max - PM
Date: 17 May 06 - 02:05 PM

"Thank you all for pondering all this. I'll have to reread it to really absorb all of it, but I get the general idea.

Money is not really that big of a deal. We do fine if I pop up about twice a year and make a comment about funds. I get a lot of flack for it, but it covers the bills.

Thank you to everyone that made a contribution, now and ever before. My beer fridge is doing great.

You will notice that money was merely one of the many items that I discussed in the State of the Union thread, yet a very high percentage of responses focused on that.

Personally, I am far, far more interested in the other concepts that I addressed. I realize that much of it falls upon me, and much of it is more behavioral than specific, but I feel it's worth the effort.

I will be posting another thread very soon with some decisions I have made and some specifics and some news and views. Stay tuned."

I, personally will look forward to hearing from Max.
Till then discussion is redundant imo

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: jacqui.c
Date: 18 May 06 - 09:15 AM

" Shambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell."

You have the definitive reply from the site owner - why are you so arrogant as to believe that you can question him in this way?

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 May 06 - 08:53 AM

Shambles, have you thought about what Max (and many others) are saying?

Indeed I have and that is why I have asked Max the questions I have in this thread so that Max can clearly inform the whole forum what the answers are.

I am not asking for Max to provide his financial details - although this has been asked in this thread - and this request did not seem provoke too much concern from my fellow posters. It was answered by Max in this thread too..........   

There was a time when asking questions on our forum or making suggestions was not thought to be a distraction, anti-social or indeed anti-Mudcat. And you did not need to wade through posts from some of your fellow posters who appear to be under the impression that they have some right to judge your worth or prevent you from posting any questions you choose.

Max does not have to reply of course but I am sure he can safely be left to decide for himself whether he wishes to or not. But I was always told there was no harm in asking..........

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 May 06 - 08:27 AM

Flippers would be more effective, AND reduce the time needed to traverse that nautical mile.

Don T.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 May 06 - 06:56 AM

"you should try walking a nautical mile in another man's shoes. "


I think you would need to walk in another man's *sandals*, since you would be walking on water...

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: John O'L
Date: 18 May 06 - 06:21 AM

Walk a knot in my shoes. Sorry I'm late. My shoelaces were poorly knotted.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 May 06 - 05:19 AM

... and you could play poker with the matches on the side...

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 May 06 - 05:11 AM

Just trying to make your point for you Roger. The less you post, the less I post.
G.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: GUEST,Oldtimer
Date: 18 May 06 - 04:53 AM

Over the years I've been a part of many committees, collectives, and a couple of boards.

Occasionally there has been a member of a committee who has taken up so much time in meetings, through constant need to hear the sound of their own voice, and has caused so much clogging of space that other members of the committee either leave or start shouting.

We used a trick called the five matches technique - each person was given five matches and could speak five times during a meeting, giving up a match each time they spoke. When no matches were left, their time was up and they could participate by listening & voting.

Shambles, have you thought about what Max (and many others) are saying?

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 May 06 - 04:21 AM

I have also asked in this thread for Max to explain to us what the real point of this site is.................

For if he considers me to be a distraction to this real point - perhaps he would consider my resident stalker and chief refresher of threads to be a distraction to the real point of this site also?

Is the real point now the encouragement of the posting only of personal judgements of our fellow invited guests?

I have always been given to understand that the purpose of our forum was to encourage posting and to provoke open discussion and have a welcoming attitude to all views. And not to encourage posters to judge the worth of, and gang-up to try and find clever and 'fun' ways to prevent and inhibit others from posting what they choose.

If this real point has changed - perhaps Max could explain to us in this thread what the NEW real point of this site and our forum is?

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 May 06 - 03:36 AM

It's not going to happen Roger, and you know it. This is just another of your mischevious posts designed to provoke.
I am glad this thread is staying up here, it has allowed people who don't normally frequent the nether regions of the BS section, to understand why Max said what he did about you in the originating post of this thread.

Ergo " Shambles: I just don't care anymore. You press your point, time after time, until you press too far and then complain about the check. You do this purposefully to prove a point, but in the end, you are a distraction from the real point of this site. You too, should bid farewell."

Giok

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 May 06 - 02:09 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship?
From: Little Hawk - PM
Date: 09 May 06 - 07:36 PM

Anybody out there listening? Close this fucking thread. Do it now.

You can quote me, Roger. ;-D

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

Subject: RE: BS: Proposal for members only posting of BS?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 22 Feb 06 - 03:59 AM

Well, I actually get more flak about what what we don't delete, than about what we do delete. Generally we follow the same guidelines we've always followed - we delete personal attacks, threats, racism, and Spam - but we do our best to allow people to express their thoughts and opinions freely. I suppose some of those opinions are objectionable, but if they're not outright hateful, we usually don't delete them - much to the chagrin of some Mudcatters.

For a long time, I opposed members-only posting, because I didn't want to scare away visitors or make Mudcat a closed, exclusive club. And yes, we have a lot of that exclusivity already - I feel like an outsider myself when I go into the "BS" section. But our nastiness has been too much, and it has gone on far too long, to the point where it's impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion on most non-music subjects nowadays. I have three Mudcatters on 100% review much of the time, and I have to do partial review on a number of others, and then I have to deal with all sorts of petty complaints about so-and-so saying this or that - and I deny about half the deletion requests I get, and undelete a fair number of messages deleted by JoeClones.

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-

As this thread has not yet been closed and it is still open for ALL posters (rather than just the usual suspects on BS section) to make an alternative suggestion to members-only posting - perhaps it would a good idea if those suggestions could be made in this thread?

My suggestion is that Perhaps Max creates (and charges for) a additonal memebers-only forum for those who wish this - or those who wish this and cannot accept the realities of a forum that is freely open to the public - stop complaining about and asking for more restrictions on what others post and go and form one of their own.

I can assue them now that they will not have to read or skip any of my posts on such a forum.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Azizi
Date: 17 May 06 - 11:37 PM

And all the tenners and baritoners and all those other voices sang "Hallelujah!"

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 06 - 11:36 PM

Tenners are ten-pound notes.   Crisp ones are newer than wrinkled ones. But, wrinkled ones are more experienced and more satisfying.

A

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 May 06 - 11:36 PM

(had to say something--looked like Bruce was in a windup there)

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 May 06 - 11:34 PM

achoo!

---

Looks like SRS got #500
-Joe-

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 06 - 11:28 PM

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: jacqui.c
Date: 17 May 06 - 11:27 PM

Oh, and the UK doesn't, to my knowledge have baritoners. Barometers, bartenders, yes but no baritoners.

(Are we there yet?)

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: jacqui.c
Date: 17 May 06 - 11:25 PM

A tenner is a ten pound note and, if it's new, it will be quite 'crisp' to the feel.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Azizi
Date: 17 May 06 - 10:59 PM

Excuse me, off subject I know, but what's a tenner?

And why is it crisp?

And do you have baritoners in your country too?

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: GUEST,Joe_F
Date: 17 May 06 - 10:37 PM

A check will be in the mail tomorrow. (I managed to use PayPal once, some years ago, but found it confusing & painful.) It would have been in the mail 5 days ago if this thread had been titled "Mudcat needs money". (What did I care what Max thought about what Bush said?) As it was, I had to wait for a cross reference from the moderated thread.

Having paged thru this one, I am moved to reflect, as I so often do, that the human visual system is a marvelous device for ignoring things.

--- Joe Fineman    [e-mail]

||: Only a unique solution need have all the symmetries of the problem. :||

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 06 - 09:48 PM

Nope. But it creates a bit of a problem. When you finish your trip, you have to get out and scrape all that glowing scum off your headlights.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 06 - 09:11 PM

Hey, y'all. It'd be real nice if Skipjack could score the 500th post to this thread.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 May 06 - 09:04 PM

Actually I think I'm going to Moon Mullins.....

Spaw

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 May 06 - 09:02 PM

I could shoot a moon but it would have to be a half-moon, since most folks' eyes aren't big enough to handle my full moon.

Waxing,

~Susan

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: jacqui.c
Date: 17 May 06 - 08:59 PM

Midchuck says he's gonna moon at Old Songs.

Subject: RE: From Max: State of the Union Address
From: Peace
Date: 17 May 06 - 08:56 PM

Who ya gonna moon on Saturday?