Complaints about editing: Still here? and why?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:33 PM

It's a weakness, Roger.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:20 AM

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

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: 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: 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 - 04:20 PM

Not all posters are equal....

YOU prove that

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:47 PM

different topi today

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:37 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.