Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 08:51 PM

...you would all be sitting around all day scratching your arses with nothing else to do.

Oh, Bertdarlin'...hardly that! If we can get rid of stupid threads like this, we might get folks to focus on the more creative side, as we used to...*sigh* one can only hope.

luvyakat

OK, this has gone on long enough. By popular request, this thread is closed. It's getting nasty, and "Nasty" is indeed suitable grounds for thread closure.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: bobad
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 07:58 PM

Troll alert!

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Bert
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 07:54 PM

Jeri says,

...Conditions at Mudcat are becoming such that Max is going to have to find a way to limit trolling...

Funny isn't it, THIS WHOLE THREAD is a troll and for some reason Shambles is getting all the flack. If the usual suspects all hadn't come along for the ride, the thread would have died out long ago.

So admit it, you all love Shambles, for without him to pick on you would all be sitting around all day scratching your arses with nothing else to do.

I think it would be a good idea to have a TROLL section like the BS section, then everyone else could leave you all alone in your own little heaven.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 06:45 PM

Sham's "Fun Quotient" as far as egging him on goes can be extremely low. So low in fact that he's insulted at compliments! No shit!

A couple of times he has taken me to task for "involving his family." The reality was that I had actually said something to the effect that his wife must be a saint or a great woman or something like that to tolerate him if he acts this way around home as well as Mudcat. Anyone as shallow as Shambolina is just too damn easy a target......but I agree, a whole lot of fun!

So.....................

Did you see that Sham's wife posted on the thread regarding "Are Women's Asses Getting Larger?" saying that in her case she HAD noticed that Sham had gained a lot weight.....so she had to say "Yes."

Spaw

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 06:37 PM

Roger: You are giving as better account of yourself than your detractors.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 06:35 PM

Oops...

Yet still Shambles, you continue to act like an asshole.... and then try to cry 'victim' when the whole world calls you an asshole.... Then you claim that you're not getting a fair shake when people call BULLSHIT and tell you you're not a victim.....   You don't LIKE what goes on at Mudcat? YOU make it go on....

Holy crap on a cracker..... At least Martin Gibson KNEW he was an asshole.... and he wasn't a suck about it

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 06:31 PM

"right to question my conduct or expect me to leave"

-I- couldn't care less.... I just post cause you're fun to egg on....

MAX wants you to shut up or leave....

D'uh

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 06:27 PM

Dunno, Roger. As I see it, I sometimes disagree with people, but I'm not combative. It's the combative stuff that causes trouble at Mudcat. and I do believe that needs to be controlled.
Joe Offer,

Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
Joe Offer
-----
But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation. Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit
Joe Offer.
------
Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying.
Joe Offer
------
Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-

Joe I know that you do not consider that such posts are combative.
I know that you do not consider that such posts are setting an example that other posters will think acceptable and follow.

However, I suggest the evidence speaks for itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This forum has ALWAYS had rules, and posters have ALWAYS been expected to follow those rules.

The main one that I have always followed - but which some of our posters have never have or seemingly have never been expected to follow - is that posts containing abusive personal attacks are not acceptable. But given the example set in practice by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, (some) other 'moderators' and their few but noisy supporters - perhaps we should not be too surprised?

These are my fellow posters - who despite such conduct really feel themselves qualified (some anonymously) to impose their judgement on my contributions, have some right to question my conduct or expect me to leave..............

I think not.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: number 6
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 04:43 PM

That means the BS section would rise up to be equal to the 'non-BS section' ... I don't think we would want this rabble to be parallel to the non-BS .. or would we?

sIx

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: jeffp
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 04:40 PM

Well, if we repeal the Law of Gravity, then we can rise above it all.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: MMario
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 04:30 PM

I've always felt it's more like debating the Law of Gravity - which one party insists is subject to legislation because it's a "law".

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: number 6
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 04:28 PM

HeHe... exactly.

But regardless everyone falls for it.

sIx

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Wesley S
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 04:23 PM

No - More like Viet Nam and Iraq. Everyone says they've won the moral victory. And there's no clear exit stategy.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: number 6
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 04:19 PM

These Ramblin Shamblin threads are like Town Hall Meetings ... kinda interesting and totally lacking in content.

sIx

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: MMario
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 04:13 PM

the "attitude" I spelled out has existed as long as the forum has existed.

that you may have been ignorant of the fact is not my fault, nor Joe's, nor Max's.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 03:49 PM

"This was once a forum that openly encouraged all forms of contributor and all forms of contributions."

This forum has ALWAYS had rules, and posters have ALWAYS been expected to follow those rules.....

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 03:49 PM

Think maybe Shambles 'methods' will work, back on him?


This forum has ALWAYS had rules, and posters have ALWAYS been expected to follow those rules.....

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 03:45 PM

Well, yes, Shambles, I did refer to you as a buffoon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM

Hmmmm.
Name-calling?
As far as I can recall, the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is generally quite careful not to directly refer to anybody by a name.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM
>snip<
Why should anybody bother with you, Roger? You're just a self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself. I wish it were otherwise, but you're really a sad case.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 03:44 PM

"This was once a forum that openly encouraged all forms of contributor and all forms of contributions."

This forum has ALWAYS had rules, and posters have ALWAYS been expected to follow those rules.....

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 03:26 PM

As far as imposition - Max reserves the right to edit, delete, etc any posting to this forum. By posting you are agreeing to those terms, as indeed you are agreeing to those terms when you post to ANY private site. Therefore, unless you are a complete and utter imbicile, any editing or deletion should be no surprise. NOR is the posters permission or notification either desirable or needed.

Perhaps you may agree that this 'like it or lump it' attitude you spell-out here - had it been the original approach when our forum first started - would have resulted in many good posters deciding to 'lump it' long ago and long before many now appear to have done?   

This was once a forum that openly encouraged all forms of contributor and all forms of contributions. It now appears to be moving towards one that is obsessed with secrecy and with finding ways to judge the worth of contributors and of preventing contributions.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 03:24 PM

If Mudcat had a "Last Post By" column (As seen on 98% of message boards) on the main forum page, Shambles would be EASY to ignore....

As it is, one must open the thread before you know who started it, and by then, I suspect a lot of folks feel, if they've gone that far, they may as well post a response......

So, the skite goes on.... the crap piles up, and mudcat stinks up the internet.....

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: number 6
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 03:23 PM

Interesting ... this thread is one of the most popular ongoing threads in the BS these days.

sIx

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 03:18 PM

" Ignore him and he has no reason to continue posting."

wrong....he refreshes old threads when he is ignored. He even link to them if they have been closed.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 03:16 PM

"unless you are a complete and utter imbicile"

And there's the rub.....

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: MMario
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 03:13 PM

in regards to your last - that's Max's decision - no one else's.

As far as imposition - Max reserves the right to edit, delete, etc any posting to this forum. By posting you are agreeing to those terms, as indeed you are agreeing to those terms when you post to ANY private site. Therefore, unless you are a complete and utter imbicile, any editing or deletion should be no surprise. NOR is the posters permission or notification either desirable or needed.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 03:12 PM

Why are you still arguing with him? No one will convince him that he is wrong! Ignore him and he has no reason to continue posting.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 03:09 PM

Roger - it is not censorship if the content is still there.

MMario - I think we would possibly both agree that it is certainly NOT censorship (or imposition) - if the poster's permission is first sought and given to any proposed action? Rather than it coming as a complete surprise to them.

It is certainly a more stylish method of obtaining the same result. Sadly it has never proved to be the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's perferred method.

Perhaps as this method - by the current Chief of the Mudcat editing Team's own admission, has not suuceeded in imposing the peace he requires and is proving somewhat counter-productive - it is time for a new Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and a more stylish method?

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: MMario
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 02:52 PM

Roger - it is not censorship if the content is still there. Nor is removal of content from a private site censorship. it is the right of the owner of the site. Nor would the immediate deletion of anything you posted be censorship. Nor would preventing you from posting.

Now if someone were deleting words of your post PRIOR to their arrival at the site - that would be censorship. Or if selected portions were prevented from being posted. but if your words are there and capable of being deleted - then you have been able to express your opinion and have not been censored.

not that censorship applies to a private location anyway.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 02:51 PM

"But more may judge this imposition to have been possibly more than a little heavy-handed?"

nope.... only you.....

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 02:44 PM

The thread was closed because there was a more recent thread on the subject with almost the same title, and having two threads caused confusion.

Is the possibilty of confusion like this, really grounds to impose censorship? I suggest that such drastic action is not proportionate to the problem (if having more than one thread on similar subjects is really to be considered a problem at all). It may well be generally judged desirable only to have one thread on each subject - automatic imposition as the means by which this end is achieved, may not always be judged quite so desirable.

Regular contributors to this long-running thread (containing much useful information on the Licensing/PEL issue) were fully honouring the past requests made for this subject to be confined to as few threads as possible. But despite being fully aware of these efforts (mainly made in an attempt to keep him happy) - the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, without consulting any of the thread's originators or providing any explanation - and despite there being no cause to rush into anything - decided that the thread that I orginated must be subject to immediate imposed closure.

By using a bit of style - instead of using the same old blunt tool of imposition at the slightest excuse - exactly the same end could have been acheived without imposing closure on any thread. There would then, have been no question of any personally motivated censorship - because no imposed censorship would have been imposed.

It was pretty obvious that the new thread was started because the poster did not understand how the forum works. They were unaware that they did not have to load the whole thread - and waiting for it to load was the only reason they started a new thread. Time could have been taken to PM this thread's originator to explain all of this and I am sure that had this been explained - they would have had no objection if the suggestion to combine it with the original thread was made.

Instead of this - the originator of the new thread was upset when their thread was later removed and combined and the originator of the original thread was forced to ask the Chief of of the Mudcat Editing Team if he would so kind as to re-open the long-running thread. This, I think was the first request that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has ever agreed to. Possibly explained by the fact that he may not have (then) been aware that it was me making the request (on the Help forum).

Some posters may not judge this imposition to have been personally motivated but some may consider that there may be some question that this may well have played a part. But more may judge this imposition to have been possibly more than a little heavy-handed?

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 02:42 PM

MMario, I knew I'd catch somebody with poor reading comprehension skills. I just didn't think it would happen so quickly.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 02:26 PM

No wonder Mudcat is so highly regarded in the folkie community on the internet.....

oh... wait.... that's right.......

nevermind

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 02:20 PM

"Great fleas have smaller fleas
Upon their backs to bite 'em.
And these in turn have smaller still-
An so, ad infinitum."

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: MMario
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 02:18 PM

oh.oh. naughty jeri! you are guilty and now the anonymous jury has condemned you! enjoy the lobster this weekend.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 02:13 PM

That includes you too Jeri. You just criticized others.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 02:07 PM

Anybody who posts to these threads is guilty of keeping them going, even if it's just to criticize other people who post to these threads. Also those who contribute by pointing out that people who criticize others for contributing are themselves contributing.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:55 PM

*wry grin*....Yep, I'm kinda guilty. I sometimes reply, not so much directly to Shambles, but to leave contrary viewpoints out for 'concerned passersby' such as YOU, my dear....just in case you needed something to do.

I've been here almost 10 years, and am not about to leave...how about you?

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:46 PM

Your just as guilty of keeping these inane discussions going BillD. I think you men need a new hobby. Frankly, I think you all have ruined mudcat with your stupidity. I'd like to see the lot of you go.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:37 PM

I get the idea his head spins, regardless of external input

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:36 PM

some pots & kettles working here, it seems.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:27 PM

You already do Clinton, every goddammed day!

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:22 PM

I'd post crap that'd turn Shamb white.... and make his head spin....

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:21 PM

But CH, Shmabolina would allow all of that and more. You could post ANYTHING and nothing would be done about it as that would be censorship.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:19 PM

" I guarantee that none of us will show up!!!"

Oh -I- would... and I'd spam his message board right back to the frigg'n stone age... just like he's doing here

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:17 PM

Well, yes, Shambles, I did refer to you as a buffoon.

I believe I said that if you act like an asshole, you'll be treated like an asshole. Is that calling somebody an asshole, or is that a "if the the shoe fits" situation? Same with loonies and idiots. If the shoe fits...

And yes, I threatened you - with deletion of your duplicate posts, not with bodily harm.

It wouldn't do to call Shambles a liar, but maybe one could say he plays peek-a-boo with the truth. He frequently makes mention of the "closure of the Affected by the Licensing Act 2003 thread." What he fails to mention is that the thread was reopened, honoring his request. The thread was closed because there was a more recent thread on the subject with almost the same title, and having two threads caused confusion. The second thread was a failed attempt, and didn't generate any discussion. Shambles requested that the first thread be reopened, and I reopened it and merged the one-message second thread with the first one.

Later on, Shambles posted a number of complaint messages about Mudcat editing in the Licensing Act thread. I moved those messages to another thread so that the Licensing Act discussion could continue unimpeded by squabbles about Mudcat editing. The Licensing Act thread remains open.

Now, THAT's the truth.

-Joe Offer, who has been a Mudcat editor since 1997-

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:16 PM

WOW....What a great oppotunity for YOU Shambolina!!! Go off and start your own!!!   I guarantee that none of us will show up!!!

You'll be happy then won't you?   Or perhaps not? Bitching is soooo much more fun you say?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:15 PM

There's part of the root of your failure Shambles...

This isn't OUR discussion forum.... it's Max's.....

He's grand high pooh-baah here.... what he says, goes.... and he doesn't have to explain himself to anyone for anything....

Like it or lump it

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:11 PM

Keep posting Shambles. I enjoy watching the chaos that Max has created with his unwillingess to take responsibility for making modifications which would eliminate these discussions.

You mean like ending ALL discussion - by closing down our discussion forum?

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:09 PM

Watch it Mario.....IF CH has you on your toes, he's probably jacking you up! (;<))

Nice arguments there CH but Sham IS really a mental case so it's hopeless......but you knew that already.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:04 PM

I just like keeping you on your toes MMario

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: MMario
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:03 PM

Who is impersonating Clinton? First he uses the term 'ignoble' - instead of his more usual scatological choices; now he is presenting a logical rational argument for politeness.

WHERE's CLINTON AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO HIM?!?

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 01:01 PM

"Max has created with his unwillingess"

Unwilling? or unable?

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 12:58 PM

"such a hysterical witch-hunt"
Again, you say witch-hunt as if you haven't made it justified.....

"has encouraged other posters to join in"
When the whole world calls you an asshole... they're probably right

"fair and impartial"
Who ever said this place was either??? Cause it isn't.... never was... never will be.... It's a WOMBAT to even try

"prevent me from posting my views and to discredit them"
No one has to discredit you... you do enough of that all on your own

"I feel that if they were aware"
We're ALL aware.... WE don't care....

"everyone on our forum gets a 'fair shake"
Not everyone deserves one.... If you want to be treated fairly, behave in a manner that warrants it

(Holy crap.... from ME, no less!!! )

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 12:51 PM

Keep posting Shambles. I enjoy watching the chaos that Max has created with his unwillingess to take responsibility for making modifications which would eliminate these discussions.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 12:50 PM

because you think you're being victimised, which is possible but I can assure you is not the case

On what informed basis do you make such an assurance to me and our forum?

Is it because the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - who has just announced his latest posting restictions which only apply to me - has said that all this special treatment, is not personal?

I think that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team must have subjected my contributions to just about every form of imposed censorship. Ranging from countless numbers of closed threads to 'silent deletion' to the latest bag-of-tricks he has announced which apply only to me.

I have been publicly and privatly threatened by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team - who has set the example that the public posting of calling me names like Buffoon, Idiot, Asshole, Looney etc is acceptable. And has encouraged other posters to join in with these abusive persoanal attacks.

Is this how someone said to be in charge of a team of 'moderators' is supposed to act? If they do could they and still expect our forum to consider their imposed judgement of the individual they are abusing to be fair and impartial?   

Why?

Unlike many other posters who are free from any sanction - I don't post offensive language. I have never posted an abusive personal attack or ever responded in kind to the many that I have been subjected to and not protected from. Yet such a hysterical witch-hunt is currently under way that many posters - new to all this - must feel that there is justification for The Shambles to be considered is the worst of all possible posters - and on whose inevitable expulsion - all problems will be solved.

I don't consider that I am. Most of what I am accused of is simply a reaction against what are clearly personally motivated attempts to use and justify all forms of imposed censorship action and restrictions - simply to and try and prevent me from posting my views and to discredit them.

I feel that the true nature and level of imposed censorship is not known by our forum - especially by many who currently support it. I feel that if they were aware - they may not support this and the current nature and level may reduce.

I am aware that this may sound totally paranoid. But the supporting evidence is all on our forum. No one has to like me or even agree with my views - but they could just help to try and ensure that everyone on our forum gets a 'fair shake'.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Grab
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 12:22 PM

I'm sorry you feel this is a witch-hunt. On the other thread, a poster called "The Shambles" specifically asked for a separate thread to be created to discuss this. Was that not you?

For I have answered your question - but you would appear to wish to ignore this answer.

Have you? You've replied to the one question which is stated twice in my very first post on this thread, namely "why are you still here?"

If you think you have, then fair enough. I summarised your rather vague answer earlier as "you'll stay here, complaining incessantly, until Max has finally had enough and you're banned", and you've not objected to that summary. OK - that's what I started this thread to find out. I did try asking why, but I guess when someone deliberately sets out to cause people trouble, their motivation is not the major concern.

Given that this is your stated objective, I'll quit trying to reason with you. And roll on that ban...

Graham.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 12:15 PM

Ignoble. That means a a person with pea size balls and a tiny dick doesn't it?   I mean, if so, that'd be Shambles for sure.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 11:55 AM

Problem is Amos... "Shambles" doesn't realize that HE'S the ignoble one....

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 11:48 AM

There is nothing noble about this.....

Truest observation you have ever made, Roger-me-lad.


A

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 11:48 AM

My first, and last post to this thread. There are many cruel and unusual ways to die, but being bored to death is not one of my favorites. Bye.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 11:36 AM

STOP ANSWERING HIM!!!!!

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 11:34 AM

Roger,

I thought you had suggested this thread.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 11:28 AM

" the witch-hunt of a fellow poster"

You say witch-hunt as if it's unjustified.... You MAKE it justified

You are not MY 'fellow' poster..... If you were, you would have done the forum a favour and bogged off a LONG time ago

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 11:22 AM

Indeed. So when people give you the reasons why something happened, over and over again, why do you never listen to them? Joe's been telling you the score for two years now. I've been trying to apply logic to that you state as your arguments. You don't listen, you just ignore them and post again without varying your original argument.

Perhaps Graham - you would be the one to provide the answer to your own question?

For I have answered your question - but you would appear to wish to ignore this answer. This looks less like you applying logic than applying a hypocritcal double standard. To enable you to continue the witch-hunt of a fellow poster that you have been permitted and encouraged by the Chief of the Mudcat Editng Team to start, and which a few others are only too willing to join in with.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Grab
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 06:45 AM

John, therein lies the problem. Shambles has proved that he can and will sustain a thread by posting ad infinitum to it every hour or so. I don't believe he actually is "reasonable", because so far he has proved himself unwilling to apply reasoning to his own behaviour.

Which is a shame, because as you say, he's pretty good as a songwriter.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Grab
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 06:39 AM

Part of the point of discussion on a discussion forum is hopefully to be able to convince others or to be convinced by their arguments?

Indeed. So when people give you the reasons why something happened, over and over again, why do you never listen to them? Joe's been telling you the score for two years now. I've been trying to apply logic to that you state as your arguments. You don't listen, you just ignore them and post again without varying your original argument.

I'll say freely that I'm not convinced by your arguments, but that isn't the problem - the problem is that every post of mine on this subject has been in answer to a question you asked or a point you raised, and the same for every post of Joe's, and other people too. You simply don't respond to any of those posts - you just ignore them. For this reason, I would say that you're unwilling to have a discussion.

Saying that you are unable to have a discussion implies some mental defect in you, which would be incorrect. I'll credit you with the basic mental equipment. But in this case, failure to participate in a discussion means that you have chosen not to do so. This reasoning takes us further into your way of thinking. The possibilities are: you're simply a troll and your posts are just designed to cause trouble, which I don't think is the case; you're ignoring those posts because you think you're being victimised, which is possible but I can assure you is not the case; or you don't have time to reply, which given all the other posts you manage, I can't believe is true; or you're ignoring those posts because replying to them would reveal (possibly to yourself) the obvious falsity of your reasoning.

For would you really seriously consider that I would have been first attracted to and contributed for so long to any forum where my once fellow poster (Joe Offer) judged what he would allow me to post?

When the quote you give is a reference to the fact that you were spamming non-sequitur criticism across the forum, then the fact that you think this is some way helping your defence speaks volumes.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: skipy
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 06:27 AM

Hi Catspaw49,
Just trying to put a "time out" in, but if it won't help will leave it at that.
Reckon that the guy needs some proffesional help.
Skipy

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 03:10 AM

So your campaign to try to prove that Joe has instituted a massive policy shift is based on a false premise becuaee "now" really isn't any different then two years ago, or four years ago, or even six years ago!!!!

MMario - you are welcome to that view.

However, on reflection you may wish to change it. For would you really seriously consider that I would have been first attracted to and contributed for so long to any forum where my once fellow poster (Joe Offer) judged what he would allow me to post?

Shambles, please try to remember that this is a thread about the Licensing Act. I can't allow you to hijack threads on other subjects and use them for your campaign against "Mudcat censorship.">snip<
Joe Offer

For would you really seriously consider that I would have been first attracted to and contributed for so long to any forum where there were anonymous fellow posters imposing their judgement on their fellow posters and where the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing team has publicly declared that the only way for him to impose the peace he requires is to turn our forum into a private members only club?

The forum that I was first attracted to was tolerant and accomodating of all kind of views. This has changed to where mean-spirited public judgement of the worth of one's fellow posters seems not only now to be acceptable but to be required behaviour.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Aug 06 - 02:14 AM

Why shouldn't he have a good laff

Well there are certainly some ammusing aspects - but there is a serious point at the heart of it.

However this hysterical and personally motivated witch-hunt is dressed-up as some noble cause - what it is about are various attempts justify the prevention a long-term poster from saying, what others may not want them to say.

There is nothing noble about this.....

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: number 6
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 09:12 PM

Meanwhile Shambles is sitting back somewhere laffing to no end. He posts and posts and far to many post back. Why shouldn't he have a good laff

sIx

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 09:01 PM

A comment made by someone who does not get involved in these threads and on an entirely different (UK licensing law) subject today.

The problem - Guest Jon is that Roger cannot understand what you are saying because he has his own agenda and insists on sticking to it often flying in the face of common sense, and facts.

Sound familiar?

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 08:06 PM

Well Skipy, he did that clear back in '99. He left in a snit and vowed not to return until he felt "welcomed." He came back of course so he must have felt "welcome." But rest assured he was carping about the same crap back then. Now after many years of continued bitching he's more neurotic than ever...or full of shit, or whatever he is.

I think he's sincere and more is the pity. I liked Roger's poetry and lyrics but his continued bullshit has soured most everyone. Sadly, he's just a dick, not even a hard-on.....just a dick. He needs help.

BTW, I think it was a blue, 2 door Snit with a DOHC 4 and a 6 speed trans.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: skipy
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 07:32 PM

STOP IT ALL OF YOU, STOP IT NOW!
Shambles go away and think for awhile them come back with a sensible head on, surely you must realise that you have not been banned yet so there is still time,(maybe just a little) for you to come alongside, still have your rights and views but not be alienated. I am sure that your points would be valued if you did not set off to make so many enemies.
Skipy

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: John O'L
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 07:31 PM

You remind me of a schoolyard gang baitiing the kid with a stutter. You know what Roger's censorship threads are all about, why post to them? If any of you had any idea of self control his threads would drop off the menu after 24 hours with no replies. Problem solved.

This of course will fall on deaf ears, you will eventually get him bounced, and we will have lost an otherwise intelligent reasonable guy, and certainly a better lyricist than most of us could even dream of being.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 07:20 PM

But he's now arguing the toss on two threads. Should this be happening?

My God! It must be the end of the world as we know it!

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 06:25 PM

But he's now arguing the toss on two threads. Should this be happening?

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 05:37 PM

Mick,

He won't listen and he's too stubborn to leave. If he stays isolated in his own little world of one thread then he is basicly stiffled. If he crosses the line and starts arguing in another site he can be EDITED (Hear that one Shambles?) and then blocked. You know most of the players here. Why not encourage them privately to stop trying to debate someone who doesn't understand the meaning of dialogue. Leave Shambles in a world of verbal masturbation.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 05:27 PM

Tried that one, GUEST. They all ignore it and debate with this person. I just want to remind him that he spent the best part of two years asking for the site owner to speak. I am now reminding him what he said and that he should leave.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 05:24 PM

All of you people amaze me. Why do you constantly debate this person. He won't see everyone else's point and his point is obviously that of a raving lunatic. This really doesn't accomplish anything.

Shambles gets one site to rant on. If no one else posts on it or answers him then he is basically arguing with himself. Leave him in his own world. Then everyone will be happy.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Peace
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 05:21 PM

"Never voting you off the island,

GUEST"

Neither would I.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 05:09 PM

"would a state where all posters were posting on equal terms really be so undesirable?"

Moot.... the people who OWN the site make it what they want it to be.... you can either enjoy it for what it is, or you can bog off

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 05:05 PM

If it weren't for you the anonymous GUEST debate would be the only game in town.

Never voting you off the island,

GUEST

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 05:00 PM

such a state has not ever existed here to my knowledge. I know for a fact it hasn't existed for at least 5 years and quite possibly much longer then that.

Even if we accept this as the case - would a state where all posters were posting on equal terms really be so undesirable?

I suggest it would be better that the current state of our forum which the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team seems to finds so unacceptable without changing it to a private members only club.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:55 PM

I think it is silly to ban Shambles or anyone from this site. I would have no problem if the "Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team" decides to delete messages from ANYONE in these forums, even if they do it on a whim.   There are no rules for a site like this and it is a shame that some people feel there are. The owner and his or her designates can do whatever they please. Some choose to sit in a corner and whine like Shambles, others ignore it.   We do not need a set of commandments that have to be followed to a T. If they don't like something that is posted, let it be gone!

Personally, I have spent less time in these depths. Below the line is pure B.S. for the most part, populated with complaints, groans, insults, and people who like to stir the pot.

Above the line has been a lot of fun recently, reminding me why Mudcat is so much fun. As long as the sewage stays below that line, it will be a good site. Nothing will ever get solved here.

Ron

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Peace
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:54 PM

Here's a different topi for ya . . . .

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:47 PM

different topi today

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:47 PM

Part of the point of discussion on a discussion forum is hopefully to be able to convince others or to be convinced by their arguments?

Agreed but discussion with you is impossible. I must admit until today I'd always favoured the "theory" that the reason for your methods of argument was you are motivated by some personal grudge and that perhaps eventually you could at least accept some things said to you.

Having read another thread on a different today, I'm pretty well convinced that is not the case and that you genuinely do have a problem. I think if you had the idea that Joe Offer was a purple martian with 3 eyes, nothing said could change your mind. I'm even doubtful that a face to face meeting where could see for youself would alter your view. You would most likely then belive that martains are capable of disguise.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Peace
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:42 PM

"He has been convinced by your actions that you need to go. Leave please."

If Max wanted Roger gone, Roger would be gone. Mick, no offense, but if you can't stand Roger's posts, don't read them. Every thread where Roger gets center stage brings you out, too. Max has not pulled Roger's URL (or whatever that thing is called--you know, the thing that makes it impossible to post). Last I looked, Max hasn't given you a button that opens Roger's threads first thing you log on. Just ignore it. I believe that was your advice to many of us over some other threads. Physician . . . .

Hello, Roger. Hope it's hangin' good.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:34 PM

No one expects YOU to be convinced. That is not the point. The point is, a lot of the restrictions are in direct relation TO your incessant complaining!
Bill

So which is it?

No problem with the complaints, Roger.>snip<
Joe Offer

Part of the point of discussion on a discussion forum is hopefully to be able to convince others or to be convinced by their arguments?

I remain unconvinced by the few arguments being made to support the true nature and current level of imposed censorship on our forum and the many personal judgements. Some posters may judge these personal judgements to be mean-sprited...

My reference was to the many general restrictions - rather than my own personal ones.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:33 PM

CLinton:

Your remark was very funny, in spite of its diagreeable intent.

A

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:26 PM

Quit discussing rationally with an irrational person, folks!!!

Roger .... you have been invited to leave by the owner and most folks. Please do so.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: MMario
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:24 PM

Perhaps a return to where all posters are once again posting on equal terms is not such a terrible concept?

such a state has not ever existed here to my knowledge. I know for a fact it hasn't existed for at least 5 years and quite possibly much longer then that.

So your campaign to try to prove that Joe has instituted a massive policy shift is based on a false premise becuaee "now" really isn't any different then two years ago, or four years ago, or even six years ago!!!!

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:20 PM

Not all posters are equal....

YOU prove that

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:17 PM

No problem with the complaints, Roger. When you have something new to say, say it. We'll listen, although we may not comply with your wishes.

That all sounds very reasonable. It is a shame that the facts do not support this. And it is sad that whoever the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team now refers to as 'we' – no longer includes all posters. But it is very clear from his imposed actions and his defence of them here – that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team does have a real problem with anything he judges to be a complaint – and would appear to take it very personally indeed.

Where it felt by a 'moderator' that some public lip-service has to be paid to the concept of posters being entitled to express their views – it is not really possible for them to be seen to prevent a poster saying what they don't want them to. So to enable this - some pretence must be found which sounds respectable and can be defended as if it has some justification.   

It's the endless repetition that drives us all batty.

What may be judged to be batty or repetitious should be able to be easily ignored and not seeming first on the list for all forms of imposed censorship. Such threads would surely not be of interest to many posters anyway and if this were the case - would die an early death. But it is not the case here - is it? The type of threads that are now restricted and subject to imposed closure attract many hundreds of posts. It is the popularity of threads and posts concerning our forum that really appears to be the problem for the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team....

And I think that "batty" statement is typical of what you term my "abusive personal attacks" on you. Seems pretty tame to me. On occasion, I may have implied something a bit stronger, but I've been careful to say that indirectly. Oh, I think that once I said, "I'm sick of your shit, Roger." Is that considered abusive?

As current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - you are now the judge of what is tame or abusive on our forum. I suspect if I posted such a thing about you – it would be judged as abusive or mean-spirited and deleted. But it is well known by now that I have no problem with posts containing name-calling and abusive personal attacks on me. They say more about the poster making them. They are easy to ignore. And it is very easy not to respond in kind to them. And I have lots of practice at this, as I am offered no protection from these – by those whose role on our forum is supposed to be to protect posters from this.

I'm almost afraid to say that because now you'll bring up three quotes from five years ago as "proof" of how you've been abused. You've disparaged my honesty and integrity and reputation constantly over the last five years or more, and I suppose I have occasionally slipped and expressed an honest reaction to you. The fact of the matter is that I do my best to ignore you except when you say things that are just too outrageously untrue. You'll notice that for every hundred words you say against me, I might say one in response. Then again, maybe it's more like one word from me against a thousand from you.
I'm sick of your shit, Roger.

If the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team cannot now stand the heat then why not get out of the kitchen? No one is forcing him or any known or anonymous members of his team to carry on. Why do they appear to think they now have some right to get angry and throw plates at the customers?

And I am almost afraid of posting them (again) – because spurious reasons will then be found to delete the post or close the thread. However, it is interesting that it is not claimed that this example of posting these abusive personal attacks. by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has not been set The attempt is now made to minimise and find justification for setting this example and shift the blame to the posters who are being publicly abused.

But the point is not whether the many examples of abusive personal attacks are the worst examples – but that they are the examples set – for others to follow as acceptable posting - by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Who would not judge the same sort of excuses - as he now provides here for the posting of abusive personal attacks as acceptable - when judging that the imposition of 'silent deletion' is acceptable for other posters accused of the same thing.

The fact that our forum is also supposed to accept that there is no personally motivation involved in the selective censorship actions imposed on those posters who are singled-out for abusive personal attacks – would be laughable, where any logic applied………I find it very disturbing now - to see the ease by which some posters can take away from other posters - those things that they themselves accept as a right………

Perhaps a return to where all posters are once again posting on equal terms is not such a terrible concept?

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 11:16 AM

If you were any more passive-aggressive Shambles, you'd be PERFECT to help run Mudcat.....

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 10:34 AM

Good analogy, Bill: We don't want to be in the situation where someone sings "You're a good old wagon, Daddy but you done broke down."

Shambles only offers two choice by his own admission: Listen to his incessant whining for EVER, or ban him. The third choice, Change things to be the way he wants it to be will never happen.

Shambles is prepared to keep this up until he is too old to see his computer screen. If he won't go voluntarily, then it seems to me it's time to pull the plug on his membership. In the long run, though, that's Max's call, not ours. If it was by popular vote, he'd be "long gone, son-of-a gunnin'"

Jerry

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 10:20 AM

Yeah, in short, it is time for you to go.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 10:06 AM

"I remain to be convinced tht all these posting restrictions and divisions are really necessary"

No one expects YOU to be convinced. That is not the point. The point is, a lot of the restrictions are in direct relation TO your incessant complaining!

You argue against 'A' for months, until it gets overwhelming, so Joe institutes 'B' to try to contain the problem....that gives you an excuse to complain about 'B' because it's now harder to bitch about 'A'.....and there are 24 more letters. I think you are up to G or H by now.

There is an old saying that seems to summarize your attitude:

"The squeaky wheel gets the grease". You seem to think that if you just say "I don't WANT it this way, I want it THAT way!" enough times, someone will give in.


...Joe has tried to "grease" the situation in several ways, but you reject all solutions that do not meet your criteria.

but you must understand, the "squeaky wheel" that can't be greased easily often gets removed/replaced. The Mudcat wagon will roll along on the path determined by the leader(s)....NOT by members who use most of their postings to complain about the rules.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 08:38 AM

Even though these folks feel the need to debate you, I don't. It doesn't matter that you aren't convinced. That is an arrogant statement. The only person that needs to be convinced is the owner of the site. He has been convinced by your actions that you need to go. Leave please.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Grab
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 08:01 AM

There would be something ironic about a general viewing lamenting about a battlefied - as if they had played no role at all in creating it... I see nothing inevitable at all about our forum changing to becoming open to members only...

Can you agree that you've repeatedly posted on this subject, copy-pasting and mass-quoting, on threads which had no relevance to it, for two years? I could provide evidence if you wanted.

Given that this is the case, your statement above is quite simply the biggest piece of hypocrisy that I've seen for a long time. I hope you're ashamed. Either that or considering a career in politics. Kim Howells and John Prescott are mere amateurs in comparison.

But would you think that he would expect me or any other poster to have to agree with all of these either?

Agree 100%: no. But either shut up and live with it, or depart for another site with terms you can accept: yes, and I can't see how anyone could think anything else was acceptable behaviour.

When you're on his site, it's his rules. His rules explicitly include delegating day-to-day responsibility to Joe and Jeff, so it's their rules too, unless you can get Max to override Joe. This you have singularly failed to do - in fact, Max has said that he's lost patience with you, that your posts are a "distraction" and that "you too, should bid farewell".

It looks like I'll have to ask again. Why are you still here? And will you remain here, complaining incessantly, until someone does finally ban you?

Graham.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 05:49 AM

Let's go a-huntin', says Risky Rob-

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 03:18 AM

You do know that the more you tell Shambles he's got to go, and that he's a pain in the ass etc. the more it feeds his persecution complex which only vindicates him and provides him with the rationale to keep up the fight.

This is not too far off the mark - but there is the question of how you judge when someone is showing a persecution complex and when they may actually be being persecuted and all their claims were totally justified. For their behavior would likely be pretty much the same either way.

But one way that would be sure to make matters worse - would be to noisly introduce some special restrictive measures that were applied to only that person and attempt to provide some justification for this.

I remain to be convinced tht all these posting restrictions and divisions are really necessary and in the best interests of our forum. Until I read something that does convince me - my views will remain the same and any form of threat, restriction and abuse is unlikely to change it.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: bobad
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 10:11 PM

You do know that the more you tell Shambles he's got to go, and that he's a pain in the ass etc. the more it feeds his persecution complex which only vindicates him and provides him with the rationale to keep up the fight. The classic catch 22 scenario.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 10:02 PM

No problem with the complaints, Roger. When you have something new to say, say it. We'll listen, although we may not comply with your wishes.

It's the endless repetition that drives us all batty.

And I think that "batty" statement is typical of what you term my "abusive personal attacks" on you. Seems pretty tame to me. On occasion, I may have implied something a bit stronger, but I've been careful to say that indirectly. Oh, I think that once I said, "I'm sick of your shit, Roger." Is that considered abusive?

I'm almost afraid to say that because now you'll bring up three quotes from five years ago as "proof" of how you've been abused. You've disparaged my honesty and integrity and reputation constantly over the last five years or more, and I suppose I have occasionally slipped and expressed an honest reaction to you. The fact of the matter is that I do my best to ignore you except when you say things that are just too outrageously untrue. You'll notice that for every hundred words you say against me, I might say one in response. Then again, maybe it's more like one word from me against a thousand from you.

I'm sick of your shit, Roger.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 09:50 PM

I forgot the '6' on the above post.

sIx

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST,number
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 09:49 PM

More like some weird compulsive disorder.

sIx

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 09:33 PM

It's a weakness, Roger.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 09:11 PM

Shambles, Joe's voice is not alone. There are many of us who would -and sometimes did - have spoken more harshly to you much earlier than Joe Offer did. You persist in saying, and possibly believing, that Joe's actions are the problem. Nicht so.

Ebbie all the harsh - mean-spirited words and abusive personal attacks I can ignore from anyone. Although the purpose of our 'moderators is supposed to be to protect posters from such things.

These I can even ignore when the example is set by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team, his known 'moderators' and the anonymous ones -that such abusive personal attacks are now acceptable on our forum. Although I am not sure - in the light of this - how anyone could accept this. Or how anyone could expect me to accept that any of their actions against my posts could ever possibly be considered as impartial.

The imposed action and selective censorship action of Chief of the Mudcat Editing I cannot ignore.

The imposed change to this thread's title and the inclusion of the 'complaints about editing' is also significant and the reason for the choice of these words - is difficult to ignore.

These are my views - they are not complaints. And if the making of complaints were a no-no on our forum - most of the posts by the 'usual suspects' are now complaints. Or they are post containing only judgements about the worth of their fellow posters and these escape comment.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 08:19 PM

Shambles, Joe's voice is not alone. There are many of us who would -and sometimes did - have spoken more harshly to you much earlier than Joe Offer did. You persist in saying, and possibly believing, that Joe's actions are the problem. Nicht so.

Personally I would rather that you not go away. I would far rather see you drop the subject and go to your strengths. Because, like it or not, Roger, this obsession is a weakness of yours.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 08:14 PM

You two guys belong on an Irish thread here.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 08:12 PM

Yes, one might hope that the last word has been spoken, but one never knows with sniveling children.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Sorcha
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 08:05 PM

ROGER! Shut the FUCK up and GO AWAY!

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 07:58 PM

If we go to members-only - and I believe it's inevitable - one of the reasons will be you, Roger. People who don't or can't respect a flexible, soft boundary, are going to make a rigid, cold fence a necessity. I can't say I'll miss way things are now. I DO miss the way things were, before the place was one big battlefield.

There would be something ironic about a general viewing lamenting about a battlefied - as if they had played no role at all in creating it.

I see nothing inevitable at all about our forum changing to becoming open to members only. And ffter being freely open to the public for so long - this would be a great shame.

But those who do not care for this and already treat our forum as if it were their own private members club and who wish to exclude and chose their fellow posters - can do so now - by starting a forum of their own.

It was largely my attempt to enable our forum to be informed and debate this proposal and the reasons for it, made by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and to obtain Max's publicly expressed view on this - that lead to the special treatment that I am now subjected to by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

One wonders how long one can be continued to be punished for the same alleged 'crime'.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 07:38 PM

We are not trying to tell Max anything, John. We are believing what Max said to us all in public.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: John O'L
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 07:29 PM

If Max wanted Shambles and Clinton out they would be gone, just like Martin is.

All you lot are trying to tell Max what he wants. If I was Max I'd find that insulting.

Shambles has answered your question. Twice, at least.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 07:27 PM

A link for Shambles

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 07:18 PM

Don't read guest posts

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 06:49 PM

Joe wasn't told he should leave, shambles. You were. Besides that, I believe Max was reffering to the trouble you were causing Joe.

Anyway, you not Joe have told the usual suspects to respect Max's wishes and I'm am suggesting you practice what you preach. I repeat:

Shambles, if you believe Max's wishes should be respected, let me remind you that he said you should leave. Instead of practising double standards, please set us a good example.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 06:40 PM

Shambles, if you believe Max's wishes should be respected, let me remind you that he said you should leave. Instead of practising double standards, please set us a good example.

Let me remind you that he also publicly asked, and I think this included me but it was addressed to another: Joe: Do I need to separate you two?

Unless Max has expelled the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team without informing us - Max has not yet felt the need to carry out this threat. After all this time - I hope he does not feel forced to do so...........

Like most of us - I have many views and suggestions. I do not expect Max or anyone else to agree with all of these. Max is of course welcome to make his views and suggestions on his own website. But would you think that he would expect me or any other poster to have to agree with all of these either?

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 06:24 PM

Perhaps the 'usual suspects' will finally respect Max's wishes in this.

Shambles, if you believe Max's wishes should be respected, let me remind you that he said you should leave. Instead of practising double standards, please set us a good example.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 06:10 PM

Nice evasion, Shambles... care to answer my question how you can state that Max needs to say publicly how he feels about your endless postings, when he has already said it.

You had not asked a question for me to evade. And now you have asked me a question that you have already provided the answer to.

The answer is that I did not state this. This is what I said.

But whether Max welcomes it or not (and that is a matter for him to publicly explain or not) - there does seem to be a campaign led by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to selective impose restrictions on my posts. It is my attempts to try and continue in spite of this personally motivated censorship and to bring this to the attention of my fellow posters - that are being judged as excessive. This would have not been the case had the attempt to selectivly judge and limit my posting not first been made.

Cut and paste will remain a very useful tool for discussion- it is not a disease to be stamped-out..................... I also said this.

Max can of course stop me from contributing at any point. He has not chosen to do so and I hope that he will not. Perhaps the 'usual suspects' will finally respect Max's wishes in this. It would be sad if Max felt forced to do this - as the only grounds would be the reaction and intolerance of a very few of my fellow posters.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 04:45 PM

All you ever do on Mudcat is show the poor pathetic little population here that you're sadder and more pathetic than even they are.....

Says Clinton with 9500 posts? Does that make me only half as sad with 4800? :-)

Mind you, Roger with over 11000 would leave an awful big hole...

(No offence, Clinton, just struck me as funny!)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 04:01 PM

Me... we... whatever....

Mudcat curretnly is hardly worht the powder to blow it to hell.... I blame myself, and all the other posters, but especially Max and Jeff and all the Mods/admin....

THEY are the ones that choose to allow the posters to turn it into what it is.....

THEY run the place.... Thus they are responsible for what goes on here.....

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Grab
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 03:49 PM

Do you really think that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would judge that he would now need your permission to do exactly as he wants, to yours or anyone else's contrubution? But you seened to have overlooked the fact that you gave permission in advance for him to delete this thread - not for him to rename it.

He doesn't need my permission at all. Being me though, and knowing what the rules are on Mudcat, I thought some initial comment to Joe was relevant (and polite) - this comment being on the theme of "yes I know the rules, but this is at the subject's explicit request, but even so if you delete it then I'll fully understand".

And, in case you haven't noticed, you still haven't answered the question in my very first post. The only answer I've interpreted from your posts so far, is: "I'm staying around and continuing with my complaining, regardless of two years of answers from Max and Joe saying that my complaints will *never* be acted on and that I am making a nuisance of yourself, until Max decides to permanently ban me from the site". If this is your considered opinion, then I guess we know where we stand. If your position is something different and I'm misinterpreting you, then let's hear it. If I'm misinterpreting your position then I will apologise, but that only holds *if and only if* you can tell us your position on the question: "Why are you still here?"

Graham.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 03:38 PM

Nice evasion, Shambles... care to answer my question how you can state that Max needs to say publicly how he feels about your endless postings, when he has already said it.

Perhaps it is too much to expect you to actually respond to a question without cut and paste?

Jerry

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 03:26 PM

Moody Blues, 14 weeks at Number 1 (in GB) from January 1965..


Since you gotta go, oh you'd better
Go now go now, go now

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 02:05 PM

"If he had half a sack, this place wouldn't suck half as much as me allow it to " Clinton

What a moment for a typo, Clinton! :)

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 01:36 PM

People who don't or can't respect a flexible, soft boundary, are going to make a rigid, cold fence a necessity. I can't say I'll miss way things are now. I DO miss the way things were, before the place was one big battlefield.

Amen to that, Jeri!

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 01:20 PM

You spent too much time at the Ponderosa, Amos?

Jerry

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 01:10 PM

Ya gotta admit, all this serious pondering takes a toll on the brain, especially after a hard night drinking Margaritas and singing. I dunno if I can handle it; it is just so ponderous, ya know. Ponder, ponder, ponder!!! :D It's downright ponderous!!

A

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 12:52 PM

I said it in another thread, but I really do think you're pushing it, and you're well past the point where even Max wants to try to tolerate your spamming. Conditions at Mudcat are becoming such that Max is going to have to find a way to limit trolling, flaming, and disruptive blather, whether it's from those who surf in from other sites after reading "Mudcat is a good place to act like a jerk" or from our own members who just don't know when to stop.

If we go to members-only - and I believe it's inevitable - one of the reasons will be you, Roger. People who don't or can't respect a flexible, soft boundary, are going to make a rigid, cold fence a necessity. I can't say I'll miss way things are now. I DO miss the way things were, before the place was one big battlefield.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 12:32 PM

I fondly remember the days when the music part of Mudcat was informative,
and the BS part was light-hearted and fun...

Now it's in shambles....

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 12:12 PM

Aaaaawww... Whaaaaaahh!   Why should -I- go?!?! Booo hoo hooo... He said all these other people should go too!!! *whine* *suck*

Why don't you cowboy up a little 'Shambles'.... go downtown and pay a quarter and buy yourself a better life than you currently own, and put it to good use.... All you ever do on Mudcat is show the poor pathetic little population here that you're sadder and more pathetic than even they are.....

I'm starting to suspect that "Shambles" is just Max, well and truly trying to put Mudcat finally out of it's misery so he'll be quit of the whole thing in such a passive-aggressive soppy, little-wet-girls-blouse way that no one will ever be able to criticize him for it....

"Oh no... -I- didn't shut it down.... it was THE POSTERS who ruined Mudcat..... I was FORCED to walk away.... "

If he had half a sack, this place wouldn't suck half as much as me ALLOWS it to

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 11:41 AM

When Max suggests that you leave, Shambles, I don't think there's much of a question as to whether or not he welcomes your endless complaints. He has already publicly explained why he finds your contributions tedious and distracting. You just choose not to hear him.
Jerry

It is interesting how selectivly all the critial comments and where they are directed - in Max's recent public post are viewed by the 'usual suspect'. I hear him very well - others do not appear to. The 'usual suspect' certainly do not seem to think any of Max's criticism is aimed at them. I will copy and paste the relevant parts here - and posters can judge for themselves......

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

I've got to tell you, I'm sick and tired of some of the crap that I've seen lately.

Martin Gibson: you have to pack up and go. Your knowledge and contributions are valuable, and it's a shame that your sociopathy prevents us from hosting you or taking you seriously anymore.

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.

Joe: Do I need to separate you two?>snip<

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 11:41 AM

"When Max suggests that you leave..."

He demonstrates fully, just what a passive-aggressive wimp he really is....

You want someone off your message baord? Ban them.... full stop....

Grow a frigg'n sack.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 11:25 AM

Joe: Apologies in advance if you consider this inflammatory, and delete it if you want.

Do you really think that the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team would judge that he would now need your permission to do exactly as he wants, to yours or anyone else's contrubution? But you seened to have overlooked the fact that you gave permission in advance for him to delete this thread - not for him to rename it.

And why would you think that he would require your agreement for having done just that. And for his attempt to justify his departure from his own rules - by pointing the finger of blame at me for this and further encouraging this witch hunt......?

As Shambles pointed out, we routinely delete Martin Gibson threads - we also usually delete all threads that are critical of an individual. I won't do it on this one because the individual involved would probably make a stink, but at least I'm going to rename it so it's not quite so directly pointed at one person.

I have consistently requested a return to where all posters are posting an equal terms.

This would then protect all posters from any personally motivated and selectivly imposed special treatment and it would protect all 'moderator/posters' from any accusation or suspicion that they were doing this and abusing their trusted and privileged role.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 07:55 AM

When Max suggests that you leave, Shambles, I don't think there's much of a question as to whether or not he welcomes your endless complaints. He has already publicly explained why he finds your contributions tedious and distracting. You just choose not to hear him.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 07:09 AM

Are we to believe, as you seem to suggesting, that Max has had a change of heart and now welcomes your campaign?

And this is not judged to be a loaded question?

What I stated were the simple facts.

I am just a long term poster trying to continue to post views which have changed very little since first being attracted to and being welcomed to air them on to our forum. A discussion forum, which has been set aside for the public contributions, on Max's website. For there is no campaign on my part, for Max to welcome or not.

But whether Max welcomes it or not (and that is a matter for him to publicly explain or not) - there does seem to be a campaign led by the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to selective impose restrictions on my posts. It is my attempts to try and continue in spite of this personally motivated censorship and to bring this to the attention of my fellow posters - that are being judged as excessive. This would have not been the case had the attempt to selectivly judge and limit my posting not first been made.

It would appear that their is also a campaign - openly lead and encouraged by some of our known 'moderators', (like Mick, kat and Jeri who now would appear to feel they have some right to judge the worth of their fellow posters and invited guests) - to prevent me from being permitted to post at all..........And who do not now consider such a campaign against any single poster, to be an abuse of their trusted and privileged roles.   

And who would not appear to respecting Max's position in NOT currently preventing me from posting.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Grab
Date: 06 Aug 06 - 06:46 AM

Fair call on the renaming, Joe.

Graham do you really consider your 'background' summary of events in the first post to be a complete or a fair one?

If I didn't, I wouldn't have posted it...

Re-reading, "campaign" may be a loaded word, as it may imply a reason. Let's leave aside your reasons, and simply agree that you have done this, persistently, for two years. There is ample evidence for this, at least.

It is perfectly clear that dispite the evidence - you do not consider me to simply be a victim of personally motivated and selective censorship action.

Please provide the evidence.

As of late 2005, Joe *did* insult you. By that point, you'd been doing this (mass copying and quoting) for over a year. No limitation on what you could do was imposed on you until 18 months after you'd started. I'd like you to show how this was personally motivated, because I don't believe anyone had personal motivation to dislike you until long after you'd started doing this, thereby *causing* the dislike.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 05 Aug 06 - 05:59 PM

Clinton Hammond..you seem to have either missed or ignored my comment on your "What a load of crap" statement...could you please answer it?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Aug 06 - 11:27 AM

"As if Max doesn't have the ability to discern who is valuable."
The past, the number of good posters Max has allowed to be driven away by unresolved Mudcat problems that every single message board in the world suffers and over-comes says differently Mick.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Big Mick
Date: 05 Aug 06 - 08:04 AM

Nope, GUEST, what he is implying is that Max only posted what he did under pressure from "unnamed fellow posters". This demonstrates several things. First, it shows that this nutter doesn't know Max. Max will not do anything that Max doesn't see the value in. Second, it shows a lack of respect for Max's intellect. As if Max doesn't have the ability to discern who is valuable. Third, it demonstrates the depth of Sham's problem. He is in complete denial. Even though the overwhelming majority of posters have said it, even though Max did respond per Sham's repeated requests, and all have said he is way off base, and even though Max said he should go; still he finds some other reason to justify his position.

Time for you to go, Shambles. You have demonstrated an inability to function in this environment. Your presence is disruptive to the discussions that make this a viable and interesting website.

Please leave, sir.

Mick

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 05 Aug 06 - 05:50 AM

So Clinton Hammond....how many times have you rocked the boat for others and had absolutely no comeback from it?

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Aug 06 - 04:20 AM

Max can of course stop me from contributing at any point. He has not chosen to do so and I hope that he will not. Perhaps the 'usual suspects' will finally respect Max's wishes in this. It would be sad if Max felt forced to do this - as the only grounds would be the reaction and intolerance of a very few of my fellow posters.

Are we to believe, as you seem to suggesting, that Max has had a change of heart and now welcomes your campaign?

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 08:57 PM

"anyone who rocks the boat for others also rocks their own boat..."

What a load of crap

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 08:27 PM

That's good sIx, I'm beginning to feel that way over in the Gaza thread.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: GUEST,number six
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 08:20 PM

Albert Einstein's definition of insanity ....

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

sIx

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 07:53 PM

Confucius say "person who prove to be a thorn in other persons side make also thorn in own side" In other words..anyone who rocks the boat for others also rocks their own boat.......If one considers rocking the boat a good pastime then others have to wonder about the masochistic tendencies of such a person....How much hurt does the attacker feel when constantly under personal attack and how does such a person 'control' or change such a cycle?. Generally they go blindly on trying to prove a point that may not be a point at all! Then it all comes down to individual power...who has the power to do what or say what?
Food for thought eh?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 07:43 PM

I don't mind flashbacks to the 1960s. Hell, I don't even mind flashbacks to the disco era--and a few folks here must remember that. But now I'm having flashbacks to last month. This kinda thing could really screw a guy all up. I don't even DO drugs anymore. Faaaaaaaahhk!

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 07:40 PM

I judge that may be the subject for another thread and not for this one...However, as I am limited to this one thread perhaps you could start a new thread with your question clearly indicated in the title - and I may just answer it for you there.

I did indeed say that - and the question was once clearly indicated in this thread's original title.

However, that title has been changed and this thread renamed but this does not change this thread's object (or its motivation).

Graham do you really consider your 'background' summary of events in the first post to be a complete or a fair one? In any trail - there is usually an attempt to show both sides of any dispute and the accused usually has someone to speak for them. It is perfectly clear that dispite the evidence - you do not consider me to simply be a victim of personally motivated and selective censorship action.

Would anyone consider it possible for me to have a fair 'shake' in this thread and under these circumstances? Whatever answer I provide to the question will not prevent the 'usual suspects' calling for my blood or at least my expulsion - will it?

So what is your purpose in staying here and doing it?

All I am trying to DO is freely read and contribute to the public discussion forum on the basis that I have been doing for many years.

Graham - you tend to concentrate on the strange idea that I really expect turkeys to be in favour of voting for an early Christmas.

All I expect is to be able to hold discussions with my fellow posters on any subject - including the issue of censorship. To enable posters to be informed of the true nature and level of this and to be able to openly debate this.

Posters who wish to take part in this on-going debate are welcome to and those who do not do not have to. Those who do not like the fact that Max still favours such open public debate on our forum - are welcome to go elsewhere - where they can place as many restrictions as they wish - rather than finding ways of trying to prevent this debate and post only to judge the worth of the participants.

Like most of us - I have many views and suggestions. I do not expect Max or anyone else to agree with all of these. Max is of course welcome to make his views and suggestions on his own website. But would you think that he would expect me or any other poster to have agree with all of these either?

Max can of course stop me from contributing at any point. He has not chosen to do so and I hope that he will not. Perhaps the 'usual suspects' will finally respect Max's wishes in this. It would be sad if Max felt forced to do this - as the only grounds would be the reaction and intolerance of a very few of my fellow posters.

There I have answered the question - and I am quite sure the same posters will still be making exactly the same judgements. Hopefully some may not.......

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 07:36 PM

I think this has become a personal attack. I may disagree with the Sham, and I may think (as I do) that his posting can (not always does)become an abuse of bandwidth.   I may even think that sometimes he should exercise self censorship but this thread looks like persecution.

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 05:50 PM

Well Joe, that's all well and good but let's put this back on track. Grab has it perfectly and I will restate it as the Shambolina often does:

"So I'm responding to your specific request for a specific thread in which you could answer this specific question. I ain't implying anything, hinting at anything, or insinuating anything - the question I asked is the question I'd be interested in an answer to. I've even asked for people to cut out any personal crap so that we can get it straight. It doesn't get any clearer or more straightforward than that.

Just as a guiding principle here, be aware that the topic of the thread is not Joe Offer, or the Mudcat moderators, or the Mudcat moderation policy, or deleted posts/threads - it's your reasons for staying. (And ditto for anyone else drifting - topic is Shambles and nothing but Shambles...)"

There is only one thing to post here Sham.....WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 04:21 PM

And a thorn, by any other names, gets as many a rise.

Joe, thanks for the long efforts at making things run smoothly. You're batting over .900, which should be good enough for anyone.

A

Subject: RE: Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 03:57 PM

"Some may disagree with my decision to rename this thread"

*Shrug*
A rose, by any other name, has as many thorns

Subject: RE: Editing Complaints: Still here? and why?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 03:21 PM

As Shambles pointed out, we routinely delete Martin Gibson threads - we also usually delete all threads that are critical of an individual. I won't do it on this one because the individual involved would probably make a stink, but at least I'm going to rename it so it's not quite so directly pointed at one person.
Shambles often does make valid points, and we do make an attempt to honor his suggestions when they are valid. He objects to anonymous editing - but the JoeClones are well-known and their actions are reviewed by Jeff, Joe, and Max - so that's hardly anonymous. He contends that we should annotate editing actions - and we do that whenever there's a need for explanantion. We don't post editing explanations when such explanations might be inflammatory - as is the case when "problem posts" are deleted. Most deletions are for mundane reasons, however. And we don't post explanations when the reason for editing should be obvious.
In general, I think what we do is quite reasonable. I suppose if we are known felons on parole who have a long history of misdeeds, then there would be a need for us to document and defend our every move. That's not the case.
Same with the charge of favoritism - it's something that certain miscreants have accused us of time and time again, but there's never been any evidence of favoritism in our editing. We really don't have a reason to show such favoritism - what good would it do us?
Some may disagree with my decision to rename this thread. There's no perfect decision in such situations, and I figured I had to do something since we have a general practice of not having critical threads directed at individual Mudcatters.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Shambles: Still here? and why?
From: Grab
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 03:10 PM

light blue touch paper and retire

Who's retiring where? I ain't Martin Gibson (you might have noticed, because I don't like either brand of guitar :-) and I'm here for the duration.

You refused to answer this question on the "Deleted threads and posts" thread, on the grounds that it wasn't related to the thread, and you pointed out that the terms of your restricted access prevent you starting another related thread in which you *could* answer it. You requested that someone else start a thread, titled appropriately, in which the question could be answered.

So I'm responding to your specific request for a specific thread in which you could answer this specific question. I ain't implying anything, hinting at anything, or insinuating anything - the question I asked is the question I'd be interested in an answer to. I've even asked for people to cut out any personal crap so that we can get it straight. It doesn't get any clearer or more straightforward than that.

Just as a guiding principle here, be aware that the topic of the thread is not Joe Offer, or the Mudcat moderators, or the Mudcat moderation policy, or deleted posts/threads - it's your reasons for staying. (And ditto for anyone else drifting - topic is Shambles and nothing but Shambles...)

The result will either be that you answer it straight; or that you feed us a line which bears no relation to your actual reasons; or that you refuse to answer at all; or that you drift off at some tangent in spite of the note above. Whatever - whichever way it goes, the rest of us will find something out. The result may be that we find we've got more in common with you than differences, or the result may be that we find you've secretly despised everyone here for years. Either way, I'd like to know. I think many others here may like to know too, which is why it's a public thread (as requested by you) instead of a private message.

I actually have no personal opinion about the result. Last year an ex-friend went werewolf on our club and me in particular, calling us all manner of crap and threatening me with violence, so the prospect of finding that you hate my guts does not exactly fill me with dread. ;-) I'd just like to know whether posting answers to your questions, as I would for a rational discussion, is a worthwhile exercise, or whether I've been wasting my time and I should cut my losses now.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Shambles: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 03:03 PM

My reply...

"Ya... whatever...."

Max is often his own worst enemy

That was his response when he was given questions he was unable to answer.... Others and I in that thread went on to have a very good conversation, in spite of Max....

The difference is Shambles has been given his answer over and over and over again....

Subject: RE: BS: Shambles: Still here? and why?
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 03:00 PM

Clinton - Max asked you to leave also. Your reply ?

Subject: RE: BS: Shambles: Still here? and why?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 02:55 PM

That was your succinct answer, Shambles?

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Shambles: Still here? and why?
From: kendall
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 02:52 PM

The more you stir a turd the more it smells.

Subject: RE: BS: Shambles: Still here? and why?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 02:18 PM

If he can't play nice, why not cowboy up and ban him?

Oh... that's right.....

So go ahead Shambles.... do what you gotta.... It appears there won't be any repercussions, other than some people here might not like you

Oh... boo... hoo...

Subject: RE: BS: Shambles: Still here? and why?
From: Big Mick
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 02:11 PM

There ya go. Grab asks for a decent discussion and the subject just copy and pastes.

Leave Shambles. You have been asked to by the owner. Leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Shambles: Still here? and why?
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 02:06 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Don't read guest posts
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 01:46 PM

Copy of deleted one-message thread that skipy started:
Subject: BS: The passion of Martin Gibson
From: skipy - PM
Date: 01 Aug 06 - 05:15 PM

light blue touch paper and retire.
Skipy


We delete all "Martin Gibson" threads. They cause too damn much trouble.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: BS: Shambles: Still here? and why?
From: Grab
Date: 04 Aug 06 - 01:24 PM

Joe: Apologies in advance if you consider this inflammatory, and delete it if you want. But Shambles has specifically requested a thread to answer this question, and I guess I'm dumb enough to stick my head above the parapet.

catspaw49: Perhaps they are waiting for YOU to provide the answer as to WHY YOU ARE STILL HERE after being asked in plain terms by Max to leave.

Shambles: I judge that may be the subject for another thread and not for this one...However, as I am limited to this one thread perhaps you could start a new thread with your question clearly indicated in the title - and I may just answer it for you there.

Background:
Joe's description of Shambles' posting behaviour, and reasoning for his being on 'special measures'
Max's State of the Union address

OK Shambles, you think that something isn't being done right. Fair enough. You ask Joe and Jeff to change it, giving their reasons. They consider your request, but turn it down, giving their reasons. Discussion continues, but you fail to bring up an argument that they find compelling. The honourable approach at this point is to accept that the forum won't quite be what you want, and either (a) stay around because the good points outweigh the bad points, or (b) leave because you can't accept how it is being run now. And let's be clear what you didn't like: renaming threads, deleting spam or flames, and deleting a post without adding significant comments for why it was deleted. These are all standard features of every moderated message board. Mudcat is (as defined in its FAQ) a moderated message board, and it was a moderated message board when you joined.

That all happened in 2004. At that point, you launched a campaign of mass-copying/quoting your complaints across unrelated threads. By 2006, this had become severe enough to warrant the site owner, Max, requesting you to leave, and Joe restricting your posting. So the simple question is: why have you not realised that what you're asking for will never happen, and either stayed around and stopped hassling Max and Joe about it, or left the site? This place is not communally owned, and it's not a public space - it's a private site owned by Max, who's delegated Joe and Jeff to look after it, and which we use under the terms which they decide between them. So "love it or leave it" is very much the order of the day.

This isn't intended to insult you. As far as possible, I've tried to avoid insulting you (although I'm afraid I have snapped a few times, for which I apologise). I hope no-one else will use the thread for that purpose, either. But I am trying to get to the bottom of your reasoning. Unless you consider Joe, Jeff and Max to be so weak-willed that they'll cave in after massive repetition of the same request, it was clear back in 2004 that the procedural changes you requested were not going to happen (because they told you so, with reasons), and that your barrage of criticism was going to have no effect. So what is your purpose in staying here and doing it?

Graham.