Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 02:55 AM

If you take responsibility for your individual communications with Joe, it will create an effect. If you do not, continuing to pump out sulfurous spiels of rococo blame and shame, then that too will create an effect. You will lives with the results of your choices. Frankly, you do not seem happy, in spite of the Herculean efforts you have made. Perhaps a reassessment is in order of how to effectively relate to others in this community.

It is a question of us all taking responsibility for our individual communications with everyone else and recognising the effect. Like others things here that some folk would like to forget - it is a simple fact that everything posted is recorded. So if the forum is a community that I or others need to relate to - it is a very strange community with a photographic memory and instant recall. That is the reality of this discussion forum. When Joe sets an example of posting personal abuse at me and encourages others to do the same and later 'spins' and excuses all of his actions - this is also creates an effect.

Unless our volunteers decide to delete it - no contribution that any poster makes here on the forum dies. Everything you say in a post remains here and can be retrieved after a simple search - looking as fresh as the day you made it.

If volunteers and other posters wish (and are encouraged) to ignore the issue and continue to post here only to make abusive personal attacks upon me for simply expressing a view - This fact is perhaps a point for them to remember? Especially as every post - including the ones telling others what they should do and what a 'wheeze' this would be - are making no contribution to the debate and are simply   refreshing the thread.

If only some of our community would finally face these kind of basic realities - offensive posting would end (without any imposed action from our volunteers) as if no one responded to offending posts and were encouraged by the example set not to - the threads would fall off the page.

I may not like folk posting or being encouraged to post to call me names or question my sanity but I hope that I can at least be given some credit for demonstrating and setting an example - that it is more than possible not to respond in kind - or at all to this provocation.

There is nothing offensive in honest debate about the best way to tackle an ongoing problem. So perhaps any future posts could at least address or hopfully contribute to this debate?

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 06:44 AM

OK Shambles, nothing wrong with a debate.

The basic reality is that the close button can only have come into being with Max's consent an wishes. The basic reality is that there is a chain of authority here Max - Joe/Jeff - other volunteers.

If you could explain why you question POLICY by frequently questioning the lowest end of the chain who have no power whatsoever to set any policy but act under instructions, yet despite dissatisfaction with the Policy (or application of) fail to question the person who ultimately has both control over all policies and over who is enpowered to apply these policies, I may begin to understand you.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Feb 05 - 04:14 PM

Shambles,

With your filing system, wouldn't it be possible not only to quote the arguments from others but also to quote your own arguments. That could save you a lot of typing. You're repeating with slightly different words the same well known arguments. Search for any pet phrase from you like 'setting an example' and you'll see that. That really could be a contribution to the surreality of this discourse, you doing the talking for both sides in quotes only.

So perhaps any future posts could at least address or hopfully contribute to this debate (Shambles)

Full of hop? That's a thinly disguised invitation for John from Hull to join the discussion once more.

But on the more serious side, I have the impression that you never read or understand what you claim to respond to. To talk to you about this theme beyond making fun of your contributions seems to me as meaningful as talking back to a hung record.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 03:11 AM

To talk to you about this theme beyond making fun of your contributions seems to me as meaningful as talking back to a hung record.

Wolfgang you could perhaps at least be prepared to give it a try and just talk to me about this theme?

For rather than simply ignore it - you choose to go to all the bother of refresing a thread on a discussion forum - simply it would appear -to again shoot a messenger that has already been well-shot.

Perhaps a forum where the object is to debate or a discuss is not for you? But finding or starting a site where 'making fun of the contributions of others' and playing to the mob - was the sole object - would be more to your current tastes?

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST, Jeri
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 09:40 AM

Wolfgang has probably come to the conclusion that the 'subject' is 'what or who Shambles wants to complain about today'. The opposite viewpoint would then logically be to complain about Shambles. Makes sense to me.

If you want people to take you seriously, please state what your purpose is. State what you'd like to happen. State the way you think this 'debate' will cause it to happen. What's the logical chain of events, starting with this 'debate' needed to make it real? I'd like to see this opening statement free of negatives. Try saying "I'd like it if ___" and NOT "I'd like it if ___ would NOT..." or "would it NOT be better if ___"

Shambles, I doubt you'll be able to make a simple, honest statement. You have no dream, no ideal, and your entire side of the 'debate' requires that you attack others. The subject HAS NEVER BEEN deletion of threads or posts, the volunteers and Joe leaving messages within posts, Joe indicating he believes you display idiot-like qualities and therefor 'setting a bad example', nor the rest of the clones 'setting a bad example', nor ferreting out the identites of the clones, nor your calling Joe 'Witchfinder General' [which for some reason doesn't fit your definition of a personal attack or name-calling], and probably a few others I can't think of at the moment. This is not A subject. This is many subjects, which again, depend on attacking what someone else does or says and what you think is likely to get you some attention. If there's a purpose other than trolling, I can't see it.

None of this whatever-you-call-it will change one thing. Max makes the decisions, no matter who the Shambles is trolling this week. One can only speculate about what Max thinks.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 04:14 PM

If there's a purpose other than trolling, I can't see it.

Then why pay any attention or respond to it and refresh the thread?

What this thread has established is that closing (and deleting) an entire thread - containing many perfectly acceptable postings that Max has invited - without any of the posters permission and knowledge - is easy. For any of our unknown number of nameless volunteers can impose this action - if or when they judge the need for this meets their guidelines.

That is technically possible to re-open a closed thread if rather unlikely ever to happen. And that the procedure is to first ask for this via a Personal Message - a course of action that would not be open to any 'guest' poster.

Now as this may seem to be a little OTT - perhaps the policy could now be reviewed - in order that if there is real need for any imposed action to take place at all - this is confined only to the offending posts?

---

If there is a compelling need for a thread to be reopened, you can also send your request to me by e-mail, [e-mail]
If you're not satisfied by my decision, you can appeal to Mudcat owner Max Spiegel, [e-mail]
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 05:33 PM

Why do you admit Max is in charge but continue to pretend this sort of thread will have any effect? That it has any purpose? How do you think this will change Max's mind?

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 05 - 08:02 PM

why did the two kids I mentioned in the '3 legged-elephant' comment keep nagging me to let them go swim in the fountain?...Because they didn't like my answer, no matter how reasonable and final it was. They wanted to debate it endlessly, hoping I'd get tired and give in.

We've been at this tedious bit for what...3-4 years now? PELS was at least about something..........

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 03:34 AM

Warm Goodbye From The Shambles

The above thread is the one that was closed twice and I have requested be re-opened. The following are a few contributions which I hope show the tone of this thread and why there was no reason for its double closure and no reason why my request for it to be re-opened, shouldn't be met. I will leave you to judge.

Subject: RE: A warm goodbye, from The Shambles.
From: Wolfgang - PM
Date: 22 Jul 99 - 09:27 AM

Roger, I'm sorry you leave too. I dearly hope when you sneak back in a couple of days, weeks, months, Mudcat'll be in such spirit that you'll come back gladly.
There have been too many partings lately: Bruce O., Martin Ryan, Roger Gall. And if you read closely you'll see that others are contemplating this move as well (I remember Alice writing something to that effect). And there are others who just have left without saying a word (I don't mention names for they might have had different reasons). People they are who have helped to make Mudcat what it once was with a sound musical knowledge. If we do not rethink (and act accordingly) others will go too. Let's make Mudcat a place Roger would like to rejoin then we'll get Martin and Bruce back too, I hope.
Wolfgang


Subject: RE: A warm goodbye, from The Shambles.
From: Jeri - PM
Date: 22 Jul 99 - 09:55 AM

Shambles/Roger, I haven't been here at Mudcat very long, and I was just getting to know you. I've seen you around Usenet and have always respected your gentlemanly words. I'm sorry you find it too uncomfortable to remain here (for now, I hope) because I'll miss you and your voice of calm reason and conscience. I'm sorry that the the friendships you've made and the fun you've had don't outweigh the negativity.
Perhaps some of us (yeah, me too) are guilty of being a bit defensive when it comes to Mudcat. It's a wonderful place, but I think we want to see it as perfect. When someone says something negative, we sometimes see it as a threat rather than constructive criticism. We jump right in and to defend our "homeland" and ideals instead of allowing the critics to help us make it better. We take sides. We make mountains out of molehills.
Jeri

I am not placing these post here to embarrass anyone. I have great respect for many of the contributions of these and other posters. Despite the provocation demonstrated in this thread - I have no personal animosity with anyone who posts here – as this would be foolish - for I only know one or two posters personally. This does show that it is foolish to build-up a picture of a poster's entire personality and judge this only from their postings. None of us are saints or sinners but folk with different views who I like to think -do their best. I just wish to see the best of us encouraged and all of this personal judgement of individuals, secrecy and imposed action based on this – not to be tolerated or encouraged as it is divisive.

When Joe did set a good example – I was a great supporter of this. Since he has chosen to set a different example – this is not one I can support and I have been consistent in this (and consistently ignored and abused). Setting a good example and listening to one's children and their demands – is always far better than nagging them, beating them, locking them in or threatening to kick them out of the house. But the comparison to the forum is less than perfect. Ignoring one's own children is not really an option. Ignoring posts that are not to your taste on this discussion forum – is so very easy.

But not – it seems for some of those who would feel qualified to judge us. Who can't resist setting the example of posting only to make personal comments – refresh the threads they do not like and to instruct others not to respond – 'as this will only refresh the thread'. Or incite others to post 'witty' responses – that again will only refresh the thread. This thread is the perfect example of this………There is another way.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 07:44 AM

Shambles, you persist in side stepping certain questions.

You single out Joe again. I don't care whether you like Joe's methods or not any more than I care whether you like the way censorship here is applied. That is not to say I don't think you should not question policy here or express dissisatisfation - it is your rights to feel how you feel about the forum but I certainly do not want another personal round of what I think Mudcat should/could be, how things should/could be applied so I stay out of that side.

What I don't understand and you constantly fail to explain is this:

You know full well that Joe has a manager called Max. Complaining to Joe in the first instance is fine but having had dissatisfaction at that level, most people I know would either take the matter higher, eg. Complain to Max about Joe and act on that response or simply let the matter drop.

Quite why, even if you believe Joe's actions are wrong, you persist in frequent attacks on Joe when you have the option to question/complain to his manager is completely and utterly beyond me.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 11:28 AM

I have made no attacks - frequent or otherwise upon barmaids or anybody. I am also trying very hard here not use the generic and impersonal term 'volunteer' as this term (or any other) is thought to be an attack upon these unknown individuals. But when I politely address or reply to the individual who chooses to defend all these actions and uses the term 'we' when doing this - I am accused of personally attacking Joe. I can think of worse terms - but i will stick with 'volunteers'.

The facts simply do not support this accusation. If Joe chooses to 'single me out' and personlly attack me (not perhaps in this thread)) and to incite others to do this - because we are not in agreement or Joe may not feel that he should be judged himself as he judges others - the wisdom of that reaction and the example it sets - is a matter for the rest of the forum to judge.

I feel that there can be no justification for setting this public example (especially from those who feel qualified to sit in judgement upon others) - no matter what the provocation may be - but there would appear to be a double standard - as there is no punishment for volunteers who transgress and indulge in personal attacks.

If anyone here has a personal problem with Max - it is a matter for them to sort out - I am not fighting their battle for them. The facts are all here and I am not complaining to or about anyone - especially Max. It is my view that it is Max's view, that the forum has been provided for the public's views - and that it is the public's responsiblity to do this and make of the forum as they wish.

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

No matter how well-intentioned - the idea that unknown numbers of anonymous volunteers are now required to impose their reactive judgement on the invited contributions of fellow posters in order to protect us from offending ourselves - is plainly too silly for serious consideration. But that is what is defended as being necessary.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 12:09 PM

Nice try Shambles. But if I wanted a go at Max, I would do the job myself.

The question still stands. This time I see:

"No matter how well-intentioned - the idea that unknown numbers of anonymous volunteers are now required to impose their reactive judgement on the invited contributions of fellow posters in order to protect us from offending ourselves - is plainly too silly for serious consideration. But that is what is defended as being necessary."

Who in God's name do you think invites the volunteers to operate here.

Please give a straight answer and name that person.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 12:28 PM

Jon, I'm just trying to figure out if he's actually unaware of how obvious the lack of logic is, or it's just a game. I don't think he can possibly be that oblivious, so I'm guessing 'game'. It's possible he thinks no one else will notice, even though that would require an unrealistic underestimate of people in general.

I can't understand his true purpose in this, or any possible intended logical result, and he's incapable of telling me, so I figure this ever-shifting, unresolvable crusade can result in: 1) irritating people, 2) becoming 'background noise', or 3) entertaining them. I don't like being irritated, and the background noice thing is a real future possibility, but I decided I preferred being entertained.

Now this is perfectly reasonable, as long as one understands it's a road that shifts constantly, but always circles back to itself and has absolutely no chance of going anywhere else. It's 'Groundhog Day', but the variations each time around can be interesting.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 01:13 PM

Keep in mind that perhaps the LAST person you want deleting stuff is somebody who says "Ooh, let me do it...I WANNA do it!"

Jeri in this thread. http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=72778&messages=102&page=1&desc=yes

As I am only invited to contribute and not invited to the recruitment process - my knowledge of this is limited and it would appear to be a closely guarded secret known only to a favoured few entrusted with the code. I think that it may involve the rolling-up of trouser legs and the swearing of oaths - in meetings held in Jeri's treehouse.

However, I do know that without willing anonymous volunteers - there would not ever be any to impose their judgement upon the rest of us.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 01:25 PM

"As I am only invited to contribute and not invited to the recruitment process - my knowledge of this is limited and it would appear to be a closely guarded secret known only to a favoured few entrusted with the code. I think that it may involve the rolling-up of trouser legs and the swearing of oaths - in meetings held in Jeri's treehouse."

Maybe you are right Jeri and that it is a game.

On the other hand, do remember the sad case of ghost who was convinced that messers H&P ran a business enterprise and got angry with Mr P who had a band that weren't traditional (a fact Mr P openly admitted). She wound up in such a state where if she was to pass comment on any festival, she couldn't without informing us it was not ran by the "evil empire" or if traditional music was described, she couldn't pass comment without telling us "it's traditional - not like Mr P's band".

I fear Shambles is heading down that road. I sympathise for him but will no longer take any of his posts seriously.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 02:45 PM

I do not think it's a game, and I do not think 10,000 replies explaining things to Shambles would change his feelings one whit. He is simply a person with an excess of "righteous indignation" and tenacity. This can be put to good use, or it can become merely an irritating hobby.

I once knew a boy who joined the army --and eventually got discharged because he didn't LIKE the way it was run. At every turn, he saw what seemed to him like injustice and unfairness, and he continuously argued with them...a bad case of tilting at windmills if I ever saw one. He finally got information on illegal practices in the Quartermaster Corps in Korea, and was 'bought off' with an early discharge.

My minds runs in several ways as to what we ought to do in the face of this .....If Shambles continues to bring it up, I suppose some combination of us who disagree will continue to post the contrary views for the sake of readers who are new to the notions of our very own Don Quixote.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 03:10 PM

Bill, it's not that he might want a crusade or change that gets me. It is what he builds his arguments on that does. The type of situation we would need for the logic used to support his arguments to make sense is:

Max is in control but isn't in control.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed minds be re-opened?
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 03:14 PM

2 cents.

mine.

Your Mileage May vary

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 03:54 PM

Why do anything?<Nobody's really being hurt by this. Pissed off, maybe, but not hurt, and the forum keeps going on. There isn't much point in explaining anything to someone who won't listen to the answers. I keep asking him what he wants and he can't tell me.

Shambles, why does that quote of mine have anything to do with anything? I appreciate the attention, but<you might want to explain why you pasted it in there because it looks random to me.

Jon, I think he's well on his way down that road, but if he were, I'd feel like I was being cruel by continuing this. I might be wrong about the level of true paranoia though.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 06:16 PM

If you don't agree or can't understand the message - there is never any need to shoot the messenger and encourage others to do so. Sadly that is the example being set by many of those who feel qualified to volunteer to judge the rest of us. This is the reality behind the 'spin'........

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

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:29 AM
I could delete Bob's name, but I doubt that would do any good. the damage has been done. The thread should have been deleted as soon as it appeared, and I'm sorry that didn't happen.
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-

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12-Jun-04 - 03:23 AM
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-

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 07:47 PM

Max is always 'in control'. Some jobs are delegated, like Generals delegate to Colonels and so on down the line. We have 4 levels- 1)Max, 2)Jeff & Joe, 3)the volunteers/elves, and 4) the rest of the members....and guests are sort of the same as members, only different.      
   These levels were set for a reason, but are sort of automatic. If editing abilities were given to everyone, I can barely imagine the mischief that would go on....if NO ONE but Max or Joe could edit, it wouldn't get done, as there's just too much to read since Max has a *JOB* now, and Jeff has a lot to do with the programming aspects and other projects.

The volunteer system just grew from Max's decision to have 'some' control, and HE decided how far it should go.

If I read Shambles complex series of complaints correctly, he would rather have NO editing...even of nastiness and personal attacks. That has been rejected to avoid the hell some newsgroups experience.
But especially he hates not having a list of volunteers posted and seems to want anyone who does edit anything sign it. Jeff & Joe have noted several times that they do not WANT elves to get into personal debates, but have also said that important deletions must be cleared with them!!!!!! So, if I understand it right, ALL serious deletions or thread closings MUST be approved by either Joe or Jeff....or Max, if it comes to that.

I have talked to both Joe & Jeff...face-to-face...and I am content that they are truly doing the best, most reasonable job possible to keep this forum as free as makes sense and still not allow unchecked anarchy.

It's too bad you don't see the point of it, Shambles...but "3 legged elephants CAN'T dance on stairs"

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 02:15 AM

Thanks Bill for eventually addressing the issue. But I note you have carefully avoided the rather crucial issue of the example set of volunteers mounting and inciting personal attacks upom other posters or how those who are seen to have chosen to indulge in this can remain to have any credibilty.

Again this is the 'spin' you accept and wish everyone to accept. I am pointing out the reality of this 'spin' and asking for this reality to be addressed - before it is blindly defended.

You state - But especially he hates not having a list of volunteers posted and seems to want anyone who does edit anything sign it. Jeff & Joe have noted several times that they do not WANT elves to get into personal debates, but have also said that important deletions must be cleared with them!!!!!! So, if I understand it right, ALL serious deletions or thread closings MUST be approved by either Joe or Jeff....or Max, if it comes to that.

---

Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed!
From: GUEST,The Shambles - PM
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 07:47 PM

I question whether 'we' have routinely deleted anything. Joe Offer may well have decided to. I suspect also that that Joe's routine deletions and judgement can only increase.

Joe if YOU don't like what the public place on this discussion forum - after they have been invited by Max to do so - and without any rules being set by him - can YOU please leave the rest of us (who do like the forum) - alone?


[Editing comment in brown] Actually, "I" didn't delete the thread in question. Somebody else did, and I approved the deletion. When I'm speaking, "I" means Joe Offer. "We" means that somebody else did it, and I agreed; or it was a joint action or decision.
-Joe Offer-

[Editing comment in green] That's right. I deleted the thread using the general guidelines. When a thread starts out as an attack, there is not much chance of it being civil. Joe is but one of us, and he is the senior admin person. His if generally the last word, but there are several of us that serve this function. There was another thread I asked Joe to review. I felt like it should be closed, but I had participated in it. Hence I felt as though someone else should make the decision. Mudelf

---

Bill is it not clear from the evidence here - that in this case - the 'serious deletions or thread closings WERE NOT be approved by either Joe or Jeff....or Max, if it comes to that'?

Should not any imposed judgement and editing action taken against any poster's wishes or knowledge be thought to be 'serious'?

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 08:03 AM

I approved the deletion (Joe Offer)

is it not clear from the evidence here - that in this case - the 'serious deletions or thread closings WERE NOT be approved by ... Joe (Shambles)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 08:17 AM

I wouldn't worry about it. It's all spin and when shambles talks of spin, I'm reminded of something a friend had me puzzled over for months. It went.

Q: Why is a mouse when it spins?
A: The higher the fewer.

It took me ages to work out that the humour in it was that the answer was as nonsensical as the question.

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: GUEST,Jeri
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 09:03 AM

Yeah, Jon. Rick loved stuff like that. He'd crack up over stuff he thought was funny because... it wasn't funny. He once accused me of 'not getting it'. I told him I understood why he thought it was funny - I just didn't think it was funny. My sense of the absurd is growing keener these days, and I'm much more appreciative of absurdity, due in no small part to Shambles 'War on Whatever'.

Some days it's funny, and some days it's boring. It was amusing to see him write tons of stuff while avoiding writing even one simple answer to any question I asked. It's amusing to see how many different variations he can come up with on what's basically one theme. It's like people who tell the same joke over and over. The joke stops being funny, but the absurdity in the repetition can be hilarious. Theater of the absurd, several light years past 'too far'. Mudcat's own Andy Kaufman.

Check out Is Discomfort Comedy Really Comedy (at 'isfullofcrap.com'):

"Is discomfort comedy really comedy? Yes and no. It depends on what you think is funnmy [sic]. It's a matter of comedy-faith and your frame of reference, and whether you are in the audience or an audience watching the audience suffer."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~S~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLL - stop flaming and abusive postings

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

Interesting Jeri. I hadn't been that observant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry to interupt - but OK

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

Censorship on Mudcat

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

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

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

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

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