BS: Do you need to be censored?

Subject: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:45 AM

So you have it from Joe himself

The following from the above thread. Which has been now subject to imposed closure.


Subject: BS: So there you have it. From Joe himself.
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 09:45 PM

These are the rules of the Mudcat, from the horses mouth. Just wanted to make sure everyone had an opportunity to see this for themself. Anyone who shares a computer, take note... you are now responsible for the behavior of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 09:18 PM

The problem is someone is attempting to provoke trouble by baiting Martin Gibson, and the problem is coming from the computer that both Jack and Carol use. I would suggest that if Jack is clouding Carol's reputation by posting anonymous messages from their computer, that they settle it at home. All I know is that it's a problem, and it's time for it to stop. If it continues, I will block the IP that is the source of the anonymous messages, and the users of that IP can settle it among themselves - whoever they are.
The self-righteous prigs among us are a far greater problem than are the aggressive trolls.
I don't like either of them - the trolls OR the prigs. Most of us are here to enjoy each other's company. There are a very few who are here to cause trouble.
-Joe Offer-

(I note that no one has threatened to block Martin Gibson's IP.)

The discussion is over, Carol. I did not threaten to block your IP. I said I would block the IP that is the source of the anonymous troublemaking. If that doesn't apply to you, then you have nothing to worry about.
Martin Gibson has had his IP blocked on occasion, and has had hundreds of messages deleted. I have spent hours upon hours dealing with Martin Gibson.
And I'm done dealing with you. The discussion is over.
-Joe Offer-

----------------------------------------------------------------
Only yesterday there was an entire thread called Joe Offer but this along with all the posts to it seems to have been deleted……………… By Joe Offer?

Do you feel that YOUR posts to the Mudcat Discussion Forum need to be subject to this form of censorship of one poster's judgement being imposed upon another?

The above is simply an example of where we appear to be heading - the point is NOT if you judge the individual judgement - made publicly in this case - is correct or not. It is the larger question of censorship in general on our forum.

If you don't think your posts need to be censored in this form - perhaps you will be brave enough to have your say in this thread now - for it may be your last chance to do so.

I would have re-opened an older thread called Censorship on Mudcat for this discussion - but this has been subject to imposed closure.

---

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:33 AM

No, Roger, WE don't need to be censored. But YOU do, just because otherwise you'll fill the forum with utterly pointless boring stuff.

Some posters need to be censored because they are gratuitously abusive. No names, no pack drill. You aren't but just voluminous and pointless. It's not a big thing, boy, it's about folk music, about enjoyment. Don't take it all so seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:43 AM

Paul

Do you not already have all the tools you need to deal with things you judge to be boring or in any other way not to your taste?

Can you not decide for yourself what to read or respond to?

Do you really need some other poster to make this decision for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:55 AM

Well, Roger, something has to be done. When we get people fighting back and forth here, Mudcat becomes a battleground. It's just not a place where you can carry on an enjoyable conversation when you have somebody dumping nastiness into every discussion.

You've suggested that people police themselves, and that they ignore the nasty posts - but they don't, and it has taken away a lot of the joy of Mudcat.

I'm open to any and all suggestions, but it seems to me that it's time for members-only posting to BS, with membership paswords sent only to those with valid e-mail addresses, and for full review of Guest posts to the music section before they are released to public view. I see no value in the continued combat we've had, or in our continuing to protect the anonymity of those who want to cause trouble anonymously.

If you have a better idea, express it. Try to say something new, something true, and something constructive.


-Joe Offer-

P.S. I saw no reason for this thread to be closed, so I reopened it. I closed the "members only" thread. It has lived its life, and there is no need for the discussion to be duplicated in both threads.
And yes, there were about eight "Joe Offer" and "Martin Gibson" threads started today and yesterday, by the same two people. They had their say, all well-summarized in the first message in this thread. So, I deleted the eight threads because they were personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:59 AM

Closing threads

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:07 AM

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

I assume the above is for the benefit of the anonymous ones who would otherwise subject this thread to imposed closure - as you have done to the following?

Proposal for members only posting of BS

As we have established that closing threads provides no benefit to the technical running of our forum - perhaps it can be explained why all threads are not allowed (by you) to remain open and the choice to contribute to these or start new one be left to posters?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:08 AM

So, Roger, I think you need to have a little suggestion: make up your mind where you want to post something, and post it once. I really do believe you should be able to have your say, but when you copy-paste things so they're visible in half-a-dozen messages, that's not fair. If you post a duplicate message in a second thread, one of the threads will be closed. Learn to live with it. For quite some time, perhaps even before you came here, it has been a general principle that only one thread on a subject is supposed to be active on the Forum Menu at any one time.

Try originality and constructive ideas, for a change. You'll find them to be far more effective than duplication.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:34 AM

For quite some time, perhaps even before you came here, it has been a general principle that only one thread on a subject is supposed to be active on the Forum Menu at any one time.

There are a number of other general principles that you have trampled underfoot in that time - probably all of them far more important than the one you now see as important enough to impose censorship on - as the one and only means to shape our forum to your taste.

Despite the fact that you have no control over what anyone chooses to post or where - it may be wish (for those of us with tidy minds) that the forum appears ordered and that no two threads on the same subject should be seen at one time.

But does the end always justify the means used to achieve it? It is twittering about with such minor detail while a far worse example of conduct is set and defended that has led you to now propose that the public be excluded from posting BS.

I see no value in the continued combat we've had, or in our continuing to protect the anonymity of those who want to cause trouble anonymously.

For you appear to see no conflict with your above statement with protecting the anonymity of those who feel themselves qualified to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters. Has this not also caused and contributed to the combat? Would a change to this not help?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:45 AM

Can Carol and everyone else have the same rights as you have specifically granted to me? For I have no wish to be treated better than other posters - just a wish for us all to once again to be treated as equals and posting on an equal basis.

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps the threads that were deleted can now be replaced, to enable others to say whatever it is that they need to say. And the ones that were closed can be re-opened to allow posters to say it where they have chosen to?

In short - if a private members club is what you want and you are determined to turn The Mudcat Discussion Forum into this - can you please go elsewhere and create one of your own?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 05:08 AM

Roger, repeat after me:

Positive and Constructive

Original, not repetitive

Make this your mantra.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 06:16 AM

How about answering the questions Joe?

Including this one. Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 06:46 AM

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.

So, do you have suggestions for ways to eliminate that combativeness, so the rest of us can enjoy each other's company and conversation in relative peace?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 06:50 AM

Another closed thread.

For my friend Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 06:54 AM

That's right, Roger. When threads get contentious, we close or delete them. If the freedom to fight is precious to you, go fight somewhere else. Many of us are sick and tired of the bickering and nastiness.

What can you do to help us resolve that problem?

And if you want to complain about the closure or deletion of a thread, tell us what value that thread had, and why a troublesome thread should be left open. Give us a reason, explaining why that closure is objectionable.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 07:02 AM

So, do you have suggestions for ways to eliminate that combativeness, so the rest of us can enjoy each other's company and conversation in relative peace?

Yes and to date you have ignored every one of them.

The most important is the example set. If you set one where individual poster are named by you and their worth is judged publicly and discussions about their worth are encouraged in order to shape our forum to your tastes - should you really be surprised if this example is then followed?

If you set the example of encouraging anonymous imposed censorship - and indulge in and premit others to indulge in abusive personal attacks on their fellow posters - can you really be surprised if this example is then followed?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 07:22 AM

Your allegation of "abusive personal attacks" is a gross exaggeration, Roger. Yes, I and other volunteers have sometimes expressed aggavation and exasperation, and perhaps at times we may even lapse into the sin of innuendo. "Abusive personal attacks" is quite another matter.

As for our "anonymous" editing, I take responsibility for all editing. I think that means it's not anonymous. If you have a question or problem, talk to me.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Aaron Aardvark
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:00 AM

I've actually been here a long time (Joe will know who I am from my IP) but have changed my Mudcat name due to some of the issues referred to above.

I came and continue to come to this forum for the wealth of information it and its members have, and for the constructive and good-natured discussions on a wide variety of topics (not always just music) which I try to contribute to in a constructive way.

Like Joe, I am absolutely fed up by the bickering and nastiness here. In a sense, I've seen the same thing happen in my professional area and in the world in general so it's hardly surprising as Mudcat is a microcosm of the outside world. But I continue to come back because there are some very good and generous people here. I will just avoid those that aren't in the future.

I'm against censorship in general and, unlike Roger, don't have a problem with the hard calls and decisions Joe has to make under sometimes difficult circumstances.

Aaron

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,G
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:12 AM

I am aware that material emanating from my IP have not always been the friendliest. And several times directed rather harshly at the same individuals. (Just a couple people)
I read somewhere before a great suggestion that perhaps needs repeating.........IF you are disatisfied with editing, what you may call censorship or even manipulation, the solution is very simple;

Start your own forum and do not allow yourself (selves) to be bothered by Mudcat.

I am not trying to suck up to the powers that be - it is a very simple solution to what several perceive to be a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Pied Piper
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:20 AM

I doesn't help when some people are pretending to be something they're not; posting as actors playing a part rather than expressing there real feelings.
I'm sure there are legal as well as good taste reasons to remove posts and someone has to do it so cut Joe a bit of slack; he's only human and will make wrong calls occasionally like we all do.
So you get a post deleted, or thread shut down, it's not the end of the world.
This is by far the least censored forum I visit and I appreciate the opportunity to speak MY mind learn from others speaking theirs.

TTFN

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:37 AM

Roger I think that Joe is too easy on some posters, and he allows things that I wouldn't if I had the choice.
It must be a great temptation sometimes to delete wholesale. However Joe seems to be very good at resisting temptation, judging by some of the boring and/or obscene posts that are allowed to remain unmolested.
I think it may be something to do with previous vocational training!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MaineDog
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:31 AM

I would like to know whether PM's are ever censored or edited or refused delivery.
MD

---

Nope. Never censored or edited or refused delivery. We have discussed allowing people to block personal messages from objectionable people, but we haven't decided to do it.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:38 AM

When I fall prey to Mudcat Psychosis, and lose my usual intentionality and post something beyond the pale-- you're damn right I need to be censored, and I appreciate our site volunteers more than I could say even if I used every word in my head and duplicated it in every post in every thread I might make for the rest of my foreseeable lifetime.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 10:57 AM

To paraphrase GUEST,G, somewhat: Whoever owns the ball, gets to make the rules. And as long as they're consistant and public, crying foul is childish.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bert
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 11:31 AM

Joe,

You said ...tell us what value that thread had, and why a troublesome thread should be left open...

Well I'm somewhat concerned about what CarolC had to say.

She says that 'you specifically mentioned her in a thread' and she posted a copy of that message.

I feel that gives her the right to complain openly in the forum if she has been unfairly treated. Now I really believe that the message she posted came from you.

I feel it would have been better for all of us if you had responded to her complaint openly in the thread that she had started, instead of closing the thread (or allowing it to be closed).

I opened Mudcat this morning hoping to see a reasoned response from you in that thread but instead I see another thread started by Shambles. If you close or delete threads then the people who are complaining don't have an awful lot of choice but to start new ones if they want to get heard.

You complain about Roger continually complaining about censorship and threads and messages being deleted. But when someone complains about YOUR behaviour here, you delete the threads. Then you admonish ROGER and ask him to say something new and something true.

Well it's NEW that you have deleted some threads recently, and its TRUE because you have said so.

Now I do believe that you are trying your best to avoid trouble and contention here, but sometimes it appears to me that your actions are causing even more trouble.

---

I said that two anonymous personal attack Martin Gibson threads came from either Carol or her husband Jack the Sailor - Jack later more-or-less admitted he's the one who started it. That resulted in about eight related threads, all of which were deleted. Both Carol and Jack agreed that the matter should be dropped, so I do not think I should discuss it further. There's a fairly complete outline of the issue in the first message of this thread. What was deleted, was related squabbling.
'Nuff said.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 12:28 PM

I think that Joe in trying too hard to be fair has painted himself into a corner, he would have been much better to have dealt with people via PMs and made no comments critical or otherwise in open forum.
People, especially Roger have taken his words and used them against him by putting them into their own context to make them fit their agenda.
This is obviously why most clones have chosen to retain their anonymity, it makes their postings immune from misuse.
I think a firm 'No comment' is the best response, then no ammunition is given to those who would try to use your own words against you!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 12:29 PM

MaineDog, no. You can delete them before opening if you want. If somebody sends you threatening messages (not just annoying ones, but ones that would be legally proscecutable as 'threats'), send a message to Joe.

Joe's a decent guy, but Joe, you're the lead editor here. You validate an opinion by taking it seriously enough to argue. People already respect you, you don't need to keep asserting yourself. If you do, you can only LOSE respect. You can't get drawn into these arguments over and over again and expect people not to change their opinion of you. You, who used to believe in not responding to trolls, can't re-open threads just to have the last word. That's how I perceive what happened, despite why you said you re-opened those lovely threads. Was that for the good of the forum?

But you can't moderate an argument and be PART of it, any more than you can referee a game and be part of it.

Personally, I don't think there's much reason to even keep the BS section open these days, as most of the posts are old grudge-matches or outright trolling and flaming.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 12:46 PM

Start your own forum and do not allow yourself (selves) to be bothered by Mudcat.
I am not trying to suck up to the powers that be - it is a very simple solution to what several perceive to be a problem.

In the early more tolerant days of our forum - the idea was encouraged to invite peopole to join in and to do anything that may inhibit this - was thought to be a problem.

Since the arrival of the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff, his known helpers and his anonymous ones - this has changed to an idea where all the rest of the forum are encouraged to tell anyone who may not like what our once tolerant forum is being shaped into - that they can p*** o**. As if this was any real solution.

But this has now changed. For it is the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff who is admitting his failure to impose the peace that he requires. It is he who is expressing disatisfaction with the result of his efforts. And despite having almost total control - is not satisfied with this and is now proposing that our forum be closed to public access.

Now apart from not appreciating these constants efforts to shape our forum to the personal likes and dislikes of a select and vocal few - I like our forum on the terms that I first posted. Those that do not and who cannot accept the realities of what a public forum is - are now welcome to go away and start their own. Perhaps it would be better for all concerned if they did just this?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 12:49 PM

Of course censorship is a need on a forum. It is just the type of argument Roger makes that makes him such a nuisance and such a destructive force. He is no less destructive than Martin.

If there were no need for censorship, then forums wouldn't have moderators. That is their job, to moderate the forum to keep the discussion operating under decent guidelines. The premise this thread is operating under is bogus and another piece of troll bait.

The answer to the question posed is very simple. Yes. All forums and public venues need some form of censorship. You can't yell "fire" in a public place unless there is a fire. And you can't keep eating up bandwidth, provided at personal expense by the owner, without subjecting yourself to the rules.

I will continue to speak to the rules, and I will continue to delete threads which serve no purpose other than to attack others. It is time to stand for the things that made this place special to begin with.

Shambles, had Joe not said what he said earlier, I would have deleted this thread. You are saying nothing new, and that you haven't said ad nauseum in the past. At this point you are simply an anachronism to the Mudcat that folks chuckle about. I would block you but that is not my call. Instead I will concentrate on a campaign for appropriate moderation of this forum.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 12:53 PM

And as a response to your last post, Roger, I must point out that you have a very faulty memory. I was there in those days. In those days you also got your nose all bent out of shape and made a very public exit from the Mudcat. I don't mind you telling a falsehood, as long as you don't mind me pointing out that it is such. You were destructive then, you continued to post Anon even though you said you left, and all these years later it continues. You are not a positve force here, you are a destructive one.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 12:59 PM

Close BS and you might as well close Mudcat.
Most people come here because they love a discussion ...on lots of subjects.
We all have a shared interest in folk music but there is a limit to how much discussion we can have on folk music alone.

We need a little moderation to keep the loonies in orderand I think Joe is doing fine. He might have been wrong to "noise up" Carol, but I've watched the wee bruiser put a sackfull of right wing bigots in their place, so why put on the petted lip with poor Joe .
Joe's great he's never deleted any of my posts although i'm always on about Christian hypocrisy and what a shower of wankers the yanks are.

I think he's fair minded and would secretly like to be a progressive
God bless him!!    ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:10 PM

Your allegation of "abusive personal attacks" is a gross exaggeration, Roger. Yes, I and other volunteers have sometimes expressed aggavation and exasperation, and perhaps at times we may even lapse into the sin of innuendo. "Abusive personal attacks" is quite another matter.

Joe why can't you accept the concept that in order to sit in final judgement upon your fellow posters - that you have to be seen to be totally objective?

Or that the example that you Bert, other known edit button holders and the anonymous ones set, will be followed?

If you make public judgements of any named poster - as a fellow poster or as an edit button holder - this example will be followed in a form of 'witch hunt'. Trying to justify this example by minimising the nature of the personal judgements as you do - is just confirming my point.

If you are to sit in final judgement - you cannot be seen to be part of the dispute or even to hold a personal view.

As you well know my argument is that the need to have fellow posters to protect us from personal attacks is simply used as a means in practice for you to shape our forum to your personal taste.

Now you admit yourself that these measures have failed to impose the peace you require - my fears are only confirmed by your intention to still stay and shape our forum into the private members club that a certain few have always wished it to be.

No - there is no going back from this point. If that is what you and a few others want - then please go away and start one of your own and leave our forum to those who accept its realities and limitations and have always been quite happy with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:12 PM

There is definitely a need for a certain amount of censorship on this forum, as there is on any forum.

When it is done, though, it will never succeed in pleasing everyone.

Sounds like the rest of life, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:12 PM

Aye Ake, I kenned it wis you before I got tae the bottom, wha else but a Scot wid use the term 'petted lip'? It's an expression I love because it describes the phenomenon so well it could almost pass for an onomatapoeia.
Thanks for the chuckle.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:19 PM

It's very complicated issue as to what debate and explanation should be done in PMs, and what should be available for public reading. I think a lot of the opinions expressed here ought to be done privately, but some of it IS valuble for the members at large to understand.


I would HATE to see the BS section go, for at its best it is a delight and place to share humor, opinion...even controversial opinion...with others. We have some very astute and aware folks here, and I learn a lot...and get to refine and explore my own ideas. I even enjoy, in theory, the ability to log out and be funny or mischievous. (I have posed as Guest, Edgar A., (a long time ago, I guess)just to be cute).......but this freedom is seriously abused daily now by flamers, trolls and other folks with petty and abusive natures who accuse, label, call names, threaten, embarass, insult...etc.

Sadly, I am wondering if Joe is not right, and BS posting might better be limited to registered names. 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

I have wracked my brain trying to even imagine a system where the good parts could be retained while filtering out the vitriol and rancor. I am sure a lot of the problem is just technical...(managing cookies and sorting of IPs..etc.)...but it obviously would involve a policy decision that Max has always been reluctant to make.

Mudcat has always permitted a wider degree of freedom than about any site I have seen...and we STILL get compaints about the relatively minor bits of editing that are done. It kinda strikes me that, if we need to have 'some' censorship, it might as well be of a type that would reduce the workload on Joe and his team.

I have been here since 'almost' the beginning (late Oct.'96)...longer than even Joe. Only Bert, who used to be 'on staff' and Max himself have seniority on me...and I have seen it ALL. My opinion is not particularly 'better' than anyone else's, but I sure have some perspective, and I have posted in 8-9 OTHER forums in 10 years, NONE of which were as well-designed and interesting as this.....perhaps that's why we attract so many obnoxious 'anonymous' posts, as well as regular, friendly ones.

so...I'm rambling, I see.....well, this stuff is important to me! This forum has enabled me to chat with, and even meet, dozens of great people, from Max himself, right down the line to Jeff, Bert, Jeri, Big Mick, WYSIWYG, Amos, Carol C and Jack, Giok, Uncle Dave O., ...and many more .....the list is LONG! There are a number who I have NOT met, and sure WISH I could!

Think about it, my friends, (those I have met, and those I only 'see' in the forum), we need to figure this out...and if it means giving up a couple of privileges in order to keep the important ones, we need to consider that, too.

Be kind to each other, hmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: SINSULL
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:21 PM

I never thought I would find myself saying this. Joe has been too fair and it is time to cut out the crap. This is from the FAQ page:

"We allow just about all sorts of discussion, but we draw the line when it's clear that an individual is flooding Mudcat with information - things like multiple "copycat" or interrelated threads, lengthy copy-paste messages of non-music articles from publications and Internet sources (one screen full of text is the limit - and remember that we encourage you to post the entire text of music-related information). If you regularly start more than one thread a day, you are quite probably starting too many. Please try to post to existing threads as much as possible, rather than splitting topics into a number of threads. I suppose there are a few other things we take action against, but I think this is a pretty good summary."

Shambles has crossed the line. When he confined his repetitive BS to his owb threads I could ignore it. But now he invades every possible thread and I am sick of it. In the past, I recognized that he has some sort of "problem', emotional or mental or whatever. I don't care anymore.
Throw him the hell out!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: SINSULL
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:24 PM

Sorry for the Copy and Paste.
When even Chongo the Chimp threads become Shambles' censorship soap box, it is enough!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:27 PM

You were destructive then, you continued to post Anon even though you said you left, and all these years later it continues. You are not a positve force here, you are a destructive one.

Can you please provide some evidence to support your allegation that I have posted anonymously. To the best of my knowledge I have only ever done this on the Help forum due to default or lazyness on my part or when my cookie has crumbled. As it seems possible for Big brother to check this - I trust that confirmation of your allegation - or an apology will be forthcoming?

Mick when will you accept that the worth of any other poster is none of your business. They, you and me both are invited guests of Max and as Max is not making these judgements - there is no point in you making them. If you do not like the worth of you fellow guests - the only option open to you is for you to leave.

Do you need to be censored Mick? Who is going to do that then?

Are you going to join Joe's private members club when he starts it?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:27 PM

Roger - you say Joe why can't you accept the concept that in order to sit in final judgement upon your fellow posters - that you have to be seen to be totally objective?

Joe isn't "final judgement" as his decisions can be appealed to Max - and geesh - he's a forum moderator - not a supreme court judge! I think everyone is aware that he is a) a volunteer; b) has a life c) is human.


You also suggest: leave our forum to those who accept its realities and limitations and have always been quite happy with them.

You've been complaining about the forum for years - do you now mean to say you are NOT displeased with the way it is run? If so, why all the objections? Also - you might want to remind yourself that it is not "our" forum - it is Max's. Joe derives any "power" he has from Max. This forum is not a democracy - it is a (benign) dictatorship; no matter what any of us feel or say about it.

I feel Joe shows more control and good judgement then *I* or most people I know would be able to show under the circumstances.


And we who use this forum don't have much to complain about..The moderators of another forum I belong to recently made the public comment that their "goal" was to respond to complaints within a week, but they considered 10-14 days acceptable. That particular forum has two FULL TIME PAID MODERATORS!!!! and far less traffic then the mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:28 PM

Amen, Bill. ***chuckle**** I remember those days, even though I came a bit after you. The piece that we had then was a sense of wonderment and excitement at the newness of it all. We were amazed at the characters and personalities, the enlightened sense of getting to know each other. We were amazed at some of the icons of ours, such as our Jean, Arlo, and a host of others. We were excited about building the place that Rick came to call "the place he always wanted to live in". We cared about the site, but these days it has lost that. I know we can never get back the sense of wonder, all kids grow up. But we can mature into the respected site we should be, the source of information in a short time we always laughed about. We can encourage the inquisitive minds, and the great debaters, and we can discourage the malcontents who come here to hear themselves "speak" or too just plain be destructive. The manipulators need to find another home. We can get this done.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:32 PM

Amen, Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:34 PM

Last correction of a false premise for you, Roger.

I have every right, as a moderator of this forum, to judge the worth of the posts. That is exactly what moderators do, in addition to the housekeeping. We apply what we know of the guidelines to the posts of those who exercise the privilege (note: I did not say "right") of posting here. My right is generated by the obligation I have as a moderator to perpetuate this site for the majority who post here. They expect we will accept the task of not allowing the forum to crumble from the attacks of trolls. It is what we do.

So go ahead and see if you can slip another false premise by. But in the meantime, any attacks, or redundant threads will be closed or deleted.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:35 PM

I saw the same process occur at a sort of spiritual camp I visited at various times in the late 70's to early 80's. There was this incredible sense of innocence, wonder, open-heartedness, shared vision, and brotherhood in the early years. Then it started to change as certain competitive egos got involved in jockeying for power and control and some real nastiness began to percolate. It just got worse and worse, until the place fell apart in the end and ceased to exist altogether.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:36 PM

I don't care anymore. Throw him the hell out!

Do you need to be censored?

As Max is unlikely to throw a fellow poster out just because you may not like what they choose to post - perhaps you may consider that joining Joe's new private members club will suit you better than Max' forum does.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: SINSULL
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:39 PM

"We allow just about all sorts of discussion, but we draw the line when it's clear that an individual is flooding Mudcat with information - things like multiple "copycat" or interrelated threads, lengthy copy-paste messages of non-music articles from publications and Internet sources (one screen full of text is the limit - and remember that we encourage you to post the entire text of music-related information). If you regularly start more than one thread a day, you are quite probably starting too many. Please try to post to existing threads as much as possible, rather than splitting topics into a number of threads. I suppose there are a few other things we take action against, but I think this is a pretty good summary."

You have repeatedly and intentionally inflicted all of the above on the Forum. It is time for it to be stopped.

MAry

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:41 PM

Boy, I sometimes wonder if Max pays any attention to all this contentious crap on here...and what he thinks about it. (?)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:42 PM

I think he should be rusticated for a while, so's we can all get a rest!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Janie
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:11 PM

I am not one of those who were here in 'the good old days', I think I came in in late 2002. But I have been here long enough to have definitely seen better days.

    Jay Baldwin, from the old 'Whole Earth' and "Co-Evolution Quarterly" days observed more than once that 'Don't shit in camp' is one of the basic rules of a tribe.

    I imagine that there were expectations that young children or people absolutely new to communal living were given a little time to learn this rule. And that the tribe understood that on occasion, anyone can mess their britches. But I bet that any person, tribe member or not, who continually and repeatedly defecated within camp perimeters was ostrasized and otherwise excluded.

    Mudcat IS a tribe. It IS a community. Tension between the individual and the community is inherent in social relationships. When the rights and individual needs/wants of individuals gain ascendancy over what is needed to sustain the group, the group falls apart. Chaos and 'lawlessness' reign. Every community or tribe needs some one to function as enforcers of rules that are held for the common good. Most people in a tribe understand the need for balance and do a pretty good job of maintaining it. With insufficient rules to protect the community as a whole, or no enforcement of those rules, it only takes a very few people acting out to disrupt the whole community.

    Mudcat is definitely worth preserving, but there are enough people (myself included sometimes) who put themselves first to the detriment of maintaining this tribe, that greater external social control is warranted to pull the forum back into balance. I definitely would favor restricting BS to members only, and I think Joe and the clones must have the ability to act as enforcers-even if their actions may at times appear arbitrary. If and when the pendulum swings too far toward control to the detriment of the forum's survival, then we can always give it a shove back in the other direction. But it is clear to me that right now the balance is tipped way too far in the other direction. We haven't policed ourselves well. We need help to get back to the center.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:13 PM

Holy crap-on-a-cracker, this place needs an enema!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: bobad
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:20 PM

Drop those drawers

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:26 PM

Sometimes, Clinton, you say things that are truly profound...

Want another glass of prune juice?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:33 PM

No problems there for me Joe...

I think you and a few others could use a whole TRAY of bran muffins though

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:34 PM

Guess where we're going to stick the tube CH?
G. ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:41 PM

In you, I'd guess....

" any attacks, or redundant threads will be closed or deleted"
Bzzzzt!   Any attacks -THAT THE MODS DON'T LIKE- will be closed or deleted.... Subtle but important difference....

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:42 PM

Gives new meaning to the term, "I was rear-ended."

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Once Famous
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:53 PM

I am leaving in 75 minutes on my trip.

Obviously the ones who cry and whine the loudest might get their way.

As I said on the Martin Gibson Europe thread, there are some good people here and there are some real and complete jerks. Some people here honestly know my real first name and fit into the former catagory and have not judged a book by it's cover. They made an effort to really reach out and show what good people that they are. The latter category never had the sense to try and do so and they have pretty much got what they deserved.

The key word to this thread is judgement. If it was up to me, which it isn't there are far more real life jerks here who should be censored for complete demonstrations of evil, anti-semitism, hypocracy, a complete devoid of morals, respect for authority, respect for country and leadership, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:54 PM

Like THAT'S a new experience for you Peace...

:-P
Heh

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:55 PM

Hurry up and piss off. Haven't you any friends or family to be calling?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Once Famous
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:59 PM

Did that, guest. You are obviously one of the jerks I was referring to.

Are you the perfect example of who really needs to be censored here?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:08 PM

"respect for authority, respect for country and leadership"

HA! Like THOSE are automatic!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST, afriendly guest
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:12 PM

One of the many inaccurate premises here is that "moderators" are just that. They wear several hats and therefore can create as many problems as they claim to diffuse. And unfortunately they do so. They are mostly well known and often publically humiliate other posters both now and in the past. True forum "Moderators" don't participate at an emotional or personal level with other posters in an ongoing manner, they simply delete. They don't argue among themselves. They don't blame other posters for problems in the public arena. They don't debate. They don't uncover anon posters if they feel like it. The ability to do all these things freely, creates many more problems in our communication than they solve, unfortunately.   

I believe the individuals with censorship rights should stop all public discourse with other forum members if they truly want to call themselves moderators. I believe this would solve most of our problems. Our problems are primarily structural. Personality problems can be fixed when the structure of an organization is fixed. I have said this many times in the past. It is time for some more structural fixes. Moderators should not post publically at all. That would be a possible reasonable beginning. In order for the current moderators to be able to continue to participate, they would have to give these operations to others who would agree to stop posting publically.

No need for debate on the rightness or wrongness of this suggestion. Only a test of the hypothesis would yield results.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:14 PM

"Like THAT'S a new experience for you Peace..."

It just HAD to be you, huh? lol

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:17 PM

"True forum "Moderators" don't participate at an emotional or personal level with other posters in an ongoing manner, they simply delete. They don't argue among themselves. They don't blame other posters for problems in the public arena. They don't debate. They don't uncover anon posters if they feel like it."

Ya... their farts don't stink either.... *rolles eyes*

"Moderators should not post publically at all."
Plenty of mods on plenty of other message boards take part, and do it well...

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:17 PM

Unrewarded in any way they wade throught the potty mouth and the whinging just for the love of it! Where are you going to find 10 or so of these altruistic personages to replace the present volunteers?
Your chances of that happening are somewhere between nil and zero!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Once Famous
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:18 PM

Friendly Guest, there is some truth to what you say.

Moderators here should be NO ONE's friend.

Not a bad idea, moderator's either become moderators or members, but not both. Bias will never be an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:33 PM

infiltration is at its highest level ever here.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Once Famous
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:36 PM

So is flatulation as well as constipation. We are waiting for fornication to catch up. Defecation has already came and went. Urination has just pissed everyone off. Masturebation got Jack Off and possibly censored.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Janie
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:41 PM

The person with first responsibility to moderate is the individual poster. Our moderators are the back-up plan.

    While the idea of a non-participant moderator (paid, I presume from all the money we all donate Mudcat's overflowing coffers)certainly has some merit, a moderator in that position is TRULY imposing judgement on the forum. With participatory moderators, we are still attempting to govern our own behavior from within and by implication, with some consensus.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:44 PM

would that moderators were attempting to govern their own behavior, janie. What I'm describing is not moderation. I know you need to be on the power side, so you're not thinking very clearly about this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:52 PM

15 more minutes....don't miss that plane!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Janie
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:57 PM

Moderating self, moderating self, moderating self.

Aw hell!   BOO!!!!

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:57 PM

I wasn't worried about having my IP blocked, Joe. What I have a problem with is the fact that you knew all along who was making those posts, and you pretended to think it might have been me so you could use me as a way to control JtS. You were trying to use me as a lever against my husband.

And then you told me in a PM that I was responsible for making it stop even if I wasn't the one who was doing it.

I have some very serious problems with that practice, and I don't care who knows it. You should never, never try to pit one spouse against another. That kind of thing will only explode in your face every time you try to do it.

Mick has my vote of confidence in this thread. Joe is completely over his head as "moderator".

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:58 PM

( ...wonder how long that last post of mine stays there before it gets deleted)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:00 PM

shit piss fuck cock sucker mother fucker and tits

all those in favor of adding 'spaz' to the list?...

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:05 PM

Donuel, George Carlin you ain't..that was unnecessary

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Once Famous
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:08 PM

Sure, why not?

Those are all words people use every day.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:12 PM

Seems to me a LOT of people whining the loudest on this web site could USE a good shit.... and a good piss.... and a damn good "around-the-world"....

If there were no motherfuckers, there'd be no siblings (That might be a good thing afterall... you decide)

tits? How are tits EVER a bad thing!?!?!?!?!?

"Donuel, George Carlin you ain't"
Ain't that the ever-loving truth!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:14 PM

As Giok and Janie point out, if a moderator had to stay out of every thread other than to police it - and not be paid to do the policing why in the world would he or she agree to do it? Couldn't be for the fun of it.

I truly would like to hear the Shambles' thoughts on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:17 PM

"... words people use every day."

yep...and when they pick the wrong place & context for them, they have problems. I'm not against any words...just in FAVOR of sensible employment of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:17 PM

From his comments Shambles is seems to think that the joe-clones are all slavering power-hungry wannabe megalomaniacs.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:18 PM

"sensible employment"

And who, I ask you, gets to define that?!?!

(Here, Max does... and NO ONE else....)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:25 PM

I could say with reasonable certainty that the post came from either Jack or Carol. I certainly had a hunch it came from Jack, but my technical information only told me it was one person or the other. The issue was hardly earth-shaking. Two troublesome threads were started anonymously. This is not a capital offense, but it was troublesome and needed to be dealt with. It really wasn't a big deal at all - it just was one of those things we deal with all the time here. I figured it worth about five minutes of my time - apparently, others think it's a big deal.

This is just a discussion forum. When people get out of hand, the moderators do things to quiet it down, so people can go on with their discussions. This is not court of law. It is not some sort of medieval world where Shambles or Big Mick or Bert dash off on white chargers to assist maidens who have been dishonored by false accusations against their purity.

It's just a discussion forum. So, can we quit the dramatics and go on with the discussion? Let's put things in perspective, people. I guess that's what makes it so hard to moderate a forum like this. I think I'm pretty objective, even if I do participate in discussions. I do my best to be honest, and to try to help people understand what's done and why. However, from my perspective, it's just a discussion forum, and I guess I don't understand why some people take it so seriously. All this dramatic stuff just seems silly to me.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:28 PM

Like there are any 'pure maidens' here....

"can we quit the dramatics"
Some, that's all they have....

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:29 PM

You also knew that you were carrying on a lengthy PM correspondence with JtS in which he expressed a lot of his feelings to you, including his anger, and that I wasn't having any comunication with you about anything at all. And you knew that he was pissed off about something that happened in the Mudcat, and that he was protesting what happened. And you knew that I wasn't involved in anything like that watever.

Stop with the lies, Joe. You knew one hundred percent for sure who was making those posts. And you were trying to use me as a lever against my husband.

You're not working for the CIA any more, Joe. Enough with the stupid "covert operations". Deal straight with people and you will have a LOT fewer headaches.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:32 PM

It strikes me that the combined emotional ages of the previous contributors to this thread is somewhere in the low double-digits. It all seems a lot like the sort of intellectual discourse found on restroom walls.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:35 PM

BTW, Joe, Mick had very good results in his communications with JtS and he didn't need to involve me at all. Would you like to know what his "secret" tactic was?

He listened.

You don't even know what the word means.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:40 PM

All I can say is that the whole damn thing is silly. All these people who live their online lives so dramatically are a real pain in the ass.
I'll say it again - this is just a discussion forum.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:41 PM

Is it possible to arrange that only members can 'start' a thread....?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:43 PM

No it isn't, Joe. You know as well as I do that many of us are friends in the 3D world as well as here.

And that's what makes your behavior so totally despicable. Because you have been poisoning the waters for a lot of people who will eventually see each other again in the 3D world.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: number 6
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:44 PM

"Seems to me a LOT of people whining the loudest on this web site could USE a good shit.... and a good piss.... and a damn good "around-the-world"...."

As shocking as that may be to some ... Clinton's statement maybe has some truth in it.

Really .... this is all way too much.

That's my 10 cents to all of this ... I'm outta here ... seriously. Who wants to waste their time with all this negative energy, negative vibes, whining, hate, accusations, paranoia, .... jeeeeezuz.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:52 PM

Get a life Carol.....

If you HAD one, this place wouldn't seem like such a big deal to ya....

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 05:22 PM

I just want a cupppa coffee, black, and sometimes it's hard for people like me to live in a world where it takes five minutes for the person in front of me to order his cup, with all the options - and another ten minutes for him to complain when the clerk screws up his order.

I'm still bewildered why it matters so much to him. Isn't it just a cup of coffee?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 05:59 PM

Maybe this is hot news, Carol, but I (for one) don't make up my mind based on what Joe or anyone else says-- I make it up, myself, when I meet people.

And I'm grateful that this seems to be the practice of many, who didn't prejudge me but took me as who I am when they met me.

So don't be scared-- you will be met on your own terms.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 06:06 PM

"Do you need to be censored?"

F##K CENSORSHIP!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bert
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 06:20 PM

Way back there Joe explained what he did and why he did it. And he's taken his prune juice.

So I'll go along with him when he says "'NUFF SAID"

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 07:17 PM

I guess that's what makes it so hard to moderate a forum like this. I think I'm pretty objective, even if I do participate in discussions.

Joe - That is the first reason why is impossible for you to moderate a forum like this.

The second reason is that as you do honestly believe that you are objective under these circumstances and you expect everyone else to accept that you can be. And if they don't accept that you or anybody can - you consider it is their fault.

All you are doing by hanging on when you have publicly admitted your failure to impose your kind of peace is to further divide our forum. As you now you want a private members club or to impose even more rules and restrictions on our forum - please go away and form your own and leave ours in peace.......

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Alba
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 07:55 PM

Help ma bob Joe. Whit huv yi done tae be causin sa much poutin!
Awe these folk in a huff aboot whit...
NOTHIN.

'a hid ma eyes opened aboot a few 'members' here no so long ago and it wiz a revelation tae say the least. Disappointing but better the devil you know the devil you don't if you catch ma drift.
Noo a laugh when a read their posts. I can see them for the shining hypocrits they are.
Giok had a great idea a while back I think. If a Member posts as a Guest and it is nasty... out them under their post.

Does the Mudcat need to be censored..well is the Pope a Catholic.
Should the Mudcat be Members only...abso.fu&*^%..lutely.


As for Joe Offer and the other volunteers on the Mudcat.
I have absolutely no problem with the job you all do and if I did have a problem and couldn't resolve it privately then I would simply go somewhere else, which is were a few of the 'greetin bairns wi petted lips' should go. Somewhere else. far, far away.
Certain Threads, which have been IMO, the Biggest load of shite ever posted on the Mudcat, have been started in the last few days.

That it my 99cents worth.


{ Hey Ake by the way, yir the Man:)}
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:26 PM

Thanks Susan.

My greatest problem wasn't how I would be perceived, though (although I don't particularly enjoy when people try to spread vicious lies about me). My greatest problem was that I was needlessly put in an impossible position. That should never happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:26 PM

So - If The Shambles is made a Mudcat moderator then he would feel obligated to NOT participate - and he wouldn't post to any threads ? In order to stay objective ?

Hmmmm......

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: freda underhill
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:34 PM

For any of us on Mudcat, its not what people say about us, its the comments we make ourselves that affect people's view of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:35 PM

So true, freda... so true.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:44 PM

That's why I'm so grateful that Jack the Sailor has now been unmasked as the TROLL that he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:19 PM

LOL, Guest, 13 Apr 06 - 08:44 PM. Yes, he's the problem here. Even when he hasn't been near the Mudcat in weeks (as is often the case), even then, he's still the cause of all of the stupid fighting and back stabbing that goes on here.

People like you (and a few others) are just looking for scapegoats. For one, so you won't have to take responsibility for your own behavior, and secondly, because you just like the taste of BLOOD.

That's why The Shambles' threads always last so interminably long. You guys just love the taste of blood and the feel of gristle and veins between your teeth.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:37 PM

"You guys just love the taste of blood and the feel of gristle and veins between your teeth."

That's dead right, Carol. Sheer sadism and glee in hurting other people is what keeps certain individuals (either Guests or members) coming back here and posting on certain threads. If you call them on it or object to it in any way they are delighted, because they get the chance to insult you some more, call you a "whiner" or some such term, and to have more fun abusing you further. Our mutual pal Clinton is classic of the type. He enjoys hurting people he thinks are weak. It's a self-perpetuating problem that feeds on itself most greedily, and it will continue as long as the forum remains very loosely moderated as it is now....just as bullying continues among children until adult authority is brought to bear on the problem.

Every bully instinctively feels he has a right to do what he's doing, because he has convinced himself that the people he is bullying deserve it...because they're nerds, they're whiners, they're not as tough as he is, they have it coming. I'm sure that from his point of view it all seems to make perfect sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:40 PM

Nicely put, LH.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 10:29 PM

No, I don't need to be tonsured. Mother Nature has done a very nice job of self-tonsuring my noggin if it's all the same to you.

What?

Yeah, I know it's "censor", not "tonsure". But I figured that if I started a dreaded copycat thread called "Do you need to be tonsured?" a certain "clone" would come along and close or delete it. He'll probably find this post and delete it instead. That's okay. I've got a copy and I know how to post it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Alba
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM

Bee-dubya-ell you temptress you..*big grin* (what is the male version of a Temptress?)
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 10:36 PM

Tempura?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 10:38 PM

Smokey Robinson?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Chip2447
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 11:49 PM

WAAAAA FUCKING WAAAAA.

Good goddamn thing I'm not a moderator here...I'd take a fucking flame thrower to the whole shit pile. Why don't you all grab a favorite beverage, fall back to neutral corners and either deal with it like adults, or piss and moan about how unfair the Mudcat is. If you don't like it here, don't let the door knob hit you in the ass when you leave.

Now, before I get singled out for not caring about your plight, let me say that I don't give a tinker's damn about your side, or his, or hers. Who wronged whom, or who deserved it...

Chip2447 (willing to loan his flamethrower to any one willing to put it to good use)

Tolerance modulator to high,
Rave switch to standby,
Rant switch to the O-F-F position.
.
.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:14 AM

Well Chip,

Interesting point of view, But it seems as though the moderator (Joe) wants this "discussion" such as it is or he wouldn't keep reopening it. He made it a public discussion when he threatened Carol and me publically and he has brought it back into the public eye after the threads were closed and again reopened this thread.

Maybe he needs to vent. Maybe he wants Max to the see the discussion. Maybe he wants to educate us by showing us the an example of how he wants us NOT to behave. Any way you look at it. This one is Joe's doing so when you give this advice here,

If you don't like it here, don't let the door knob hit you in the ass when you leave.

You are giving it to Joe Offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:33 AM

This one's for you Janie!

Don't shit in Camp!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 02:54 AM

Well, can I have my cup of coffee and get away from all this shit?

I guess I don't understand all these people and all their combat and offended honor and all that.

All I want is my cup of coffee, and maybe a little music discussion. Too many of you people are just plain crazy, and there's no way to deal with you and make you happy. Most of the people here want the same thing I want - conversation and maybe a good, plain cup of coffee. They're here to enjoy the company of others. All the bellyaching comes from a very few high-maintenance people, and it's really bewildering for the rest of us to figure out how to deal with it.

So, give me my coffee and get off my case. Better yet, make it scotch on the rocks.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 02:59 AM

" I was needlessly put in an impossible position"

Can't happen on the internet unless you LET it happen.... And you're happy it did, cause it gave you something to moan about....

If you don't like it here, don't let the door knob hit ya where the good lord split ya

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 03:16 AM

"Well, can I have my cup of coffee and get away from all this shit?"

You said the shit was over and started it up again. :)

" I guess I don't understand all these people and all their combat and offended honor and all that." Figure out why you do it then maybe you'll understand the others.

Or

Maybe you simply enjoy complaints with your coffee.

You can end the discussion whenever you want. Close the thread just like you opened it.

---

No, we can't just arbitrarily close threads. We have to have a reason I can defend. That's why I reopened the thread - because I could think of no defensible reason to close it, even though a Clone had considered it worthy of closure.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 03:22 AM

I'm not going anywhere, Clinton. I don't need to go anywhere.

I had only one purpose in starting those "Joe Offer" threads. My one purpose was to try to get Joe to stop trying to use me as a lever against my husband any more. I hope I have succeeded in my objective. Time will tell.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 03:46 AM

Joe could have handled quietly Clinton. He chose not to for his own reason. We all know Carol isn't going anywhere. So are you helping anything or just stirring the pot?

How are the gigs going? Are you looking forward to the Playoffs? Detroit could be playing til June.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 05:33 AM

I know I shouldn't jump in but why, Joe, did you not settle this by PM instead of making it public in the first place?

I think thats the real problem because it has happened with others as well? Whats with the public humiliation, Joe? Is this your feeble attempt at some kind of control? I can't help but notice your reluctance to expose Martin, in any way, for far more disturbing actions than either Peace, or Carol or even myself. Shambles is much older than myself so I have no comment. I have also noticed the C.H. seems particulary obsessed with L.H. Yet you say nothing to C.H.

You're probably a really nice guy, Joe, but I do think you have a very different sense of right and wrong than I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 06:59 AM

Why don't you all grab a favorite beverage, fall back to neutral corners and either deal with it like adults, or piss and moan about how unfair the Mudcat is. If you don't like it here, don't let the door knob hit you in the ass when you leave.

............................................................

I really do believe you should be able to have your say, but when you copy-paste things so they're visible in half-a-dozen messages, that's not fair.
Joe Offer

As you can see - it is the pissers and moaners - led by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff who do not seem to have ever liked our forum on the terms that Max has presented to us. They seem to consider that what others may choose to post is somehow unfair but what they choose to impose on others in the attempt to shape our forum the their tastes is not. Which is why they now wish the next move to exclude the public.

Examples of them publicly referring to their fellow postes as assholes or worse are not uncommon. Because of this - changes are imposed by them to suit their personal tastes and still they are not satisfied........

Moaning about and using terms like "combat" when it is you who holds up the standard and expecting others to flock to this - whilst encouraging them to publicy pass judgement and abuse on the worth of those who do not flock to the standard - is combat and it only ever going to result in more division and combat on our forum.

Which has never been never JUST a discussion forum. Those who would describe it it such terms show that they have never understood the realities of what Max had in mind for our forum. And I hope still does.   

It is clear that Joe Offer will not rest until he has finally excluded the public from freely contributing to our forum.

It seems to be clear (from his few public statements and until he decides to comment on this issue) that Max does not wish to exclude the public.

So the answer would appear to be that those few who wish to have a private members club go and form one of their own where they can pass judgement on each other's worth as much as they wish.

Incidently - do you need to be censored?

I think I have counted one poster so far who considers they need to be censored.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 07:10 AM

You may have missed the following - as they were editing comments inserted into existing posts which did not refresh the thread.

Nope. Never censored or edited or refused delivery. We have discussed allowing people to block personal messages from objectionable people, but we haven't decided to do it.
-Joe Offer-

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

I said that two anonymous personal attack Martin Gibson threads came from either Carol or her husband Jack the Sailor - Jack later more-or-less admitted he's the one who started it. That resulted in about eight related threads, all of which were deleted. Both Carol and Jack agreed that the matter should be dropped, so I do not think I should discuss it further. There's a fairly complete outline of the issue in the first message of this thread. What was deleted, was related squabbling.
'Nuff said.
-Joe Offer

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

No, we can't just arbitrarily close threads. We have to have a reason I can defend. That's why I reopened the thread - because I could think of no defensible reason to close it, even though a Clone had considered it worthy of closure.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 07:15 AM

Well guys you've certainly got Roger's hopes up with all this too public discussion of things that should have been private in most cases. He's been trying for a long time to discredit Joe, and to drive a wedge between him and the rest of us.
I suggest that grievances are sorted out in a less public fashion!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 07:18 AM

"Well, can I have my cup of coffee and get away from all this shit?"

Joe, the Good Lord said you should use a shovel and not a cup of coffee... Isn't coffee an emetic anyway? :-P

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 07:27 AM

DELETE THIS THREAD

Not deleted - but it as been subject to imposed closure for no explained reason and by persons unknown.

It was obviously started by someone who does feel they need to be censored...........

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 07:32 AM

Explain the BS rules - 26 Oct 99

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.
Max

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,G
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 08:10 AM

Are a bunch of rules required or simply some common sense and a minimal amount of consideration.

What I have noticed here are some who can not stand their point of view to be objected to. Their response is to trash the poster's integrity and more or less ignore the content of the post. There is a phrase for that behavior but it would not help the cause here.

There are many here who can take a hit and still continue on a sane and sensible approach to debate.

When in Rome, do as............or move.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Alba
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 08:25 AM

Over to you MR Dylan:

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:14 AM

No, we can't just arbitrarily close threads. We have to have a reason I can defend. That's why I reopened the thread - because I could think of no defensible reason to close it, even though a Clone had considered it worthy of closure.
-Joe Offer-

Seems to me tha Clone had a point and that Shambles just wanted to continue the discussion you had closed. But you are the man.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:26 AM

I suggest that all 'invasive posts' i.e. posts which have nothing to do with the subject of the thread be deleted automatically.
Too many times I have seen people post into threads which they have made no contribution to in any other way, just to spread their crusade, or to claim a centenarian thread.
Fair enough I have seen posts that were accidentally posted in the wrong place, but those are the exception rather than the rule.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:41 AM

John that sounds like a heck of a lot of work and It would take exquisite judgement. Maybe above the line it might work, but not down here in crazy land.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,G
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:44 AM

"Giok", sounds like a fair idea and it would certaily cut down on band width, way down.

See you good folks next week, hope Martin G. enjoys his trip.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 09:53 AM

ABOLISH THREAD DRIFT!




We now return you to the regular thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 10:16 AM

Naw; thread drift can be fun, curbing thread sabotage is more what I had in mind Robin!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Alba
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 10:23 AM

Indoor voices please Foolestroupe and maybe the colour Green would be a little subtler than the Red. ..ROFL...:>)
Best Wishes
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 10:31 AM

Giok, nice thought, but we'd miss out on a lot of fun thread drift if that were the case. There IS too much of the inane, post-to-stir-the-pot crap, but every once in awhile there comes a gem and I'd hate to miss them.:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 10:31 AM

I suggest that all 'invasive posts' i.e. posts which have nothing to do with the subject of the thread be deleted automatically.

*Smiles*

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 10:54 AM

Giok, nice thought, but we'd miss out on a lot of fun thread drift if that were the case.

Can it be explained to me the logic behind the concept that there could ever be anything 'NICE' about the suggestion by one poster that the chosen contribution of another poster be automatically deleted?

Our forum has always been shaped but what is contributed to it and an open invitation is still made by our host for the public to do this.

It is telling that the accepted line from some of our fellow guests and usual suspects - is now firmly focused on what can be closed, deleted otherwise prevented and inhibited.

There can be nothing remotely 'NICE' about this. If those who do not like the reality of a forum where they may have to read things they may not like and from contributors they may not like - the answer is for them to go away and start one.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 10:56 AM

Add to the banned post list, posts which are quoted out of context, and without asking the author.
If you are so incensed about your precious prose being tampered with Roger, I suggest you practice what you preach and don't use other people's words without their express permission.
Then again with you it's 'do as I say not as I do' isn't Roger?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 11:10 AM

Do you need to be censored?

As you have failed to address the subject of this thread - should all of your many posts in this thread have been automatically deleted?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: clairerise
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 11:35 AM

perhaps if you all called it something other than censored everyone would like the idea more.

the words you spin are the webs that can entangle you.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 11:38 AM

I don't need to be censored, but I know someone who does matey!
What I mean to say, and do try not to take this as a personal judgement on you Roger, is that I wish you would go away and stop wasting your time and ours in endless and pointless discussions about what is at best a theoretical Mudcat, which doesn't and never will exist.
That's because the MAJORITY like it the way it is Roger, and what's more we dislike your efforts to hijack the site, and how it's run. Plus your efforts to entrap, discredit, and get rid of certain Mudcat people you don't like, and have a grudge against.
I am rapidly developing a grudge against you Roger, and your mealy mouthed posturing, your self seeking disguised as self righteousness, and your all round nit picking behaviour.
You know of course that this makes the Mudcat an unpleasant and unhappy place to visit at times don't you?
Of course you do, that's why you do it!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:03 PM

I suggest that grievances are sorted out in a less public fashion!

I tried to do that the last time something like this happened, and it accomplished nothing. My hope is that it will not be an issue in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:42 PM

If you don't like it here... leave.

Oddly, that seems to be the attitude of a fair number of people around here. I say "oddly" because the vast majority of Mudcatters probably hold concepts like "My country, right or wrong!" or "America! Love it or leave it!" in high contempt. Yet, "If you don't like it here... leave." expresses the very same attitude. It says that the speaker is comfortable with the status quo and that those who are not comfortable with it should simply disappear instead of trying to change it.

Now, it's been said numerous times that the Mudcat is not a democracy, and that's quite true. The place belongs to Max and he decides how it's run. But Max, Joe and virtually every person who frequents this forum are products of democratic processes. Our modes of thinking have developed within a democratic context. We've been taught that our opinions matter, and we're even encouraged to express those opinions.

It's absurd to expect people to leave fundamental chunks of their world-views at the door when they log on here. It's absurd to establish a forum where vigorous discussion of national and international political and social issues is encouraged, yet say that discussion of similar issues relative to the forum itself is somehow off-limits.

Just my two-cents worth. Have some sort of a day.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 02:19 PM

I have every right, as a moderator of this forum, to judge the worth of the posts. That is exactly what moderators do, in addition to the housekeeping.

Perhaps you currently do have some right but do not all rights come with some responsiblity? Or perhaps what you have also is but a privilige and one that can be taken away should this this privilige be seen to be abused?

For when you are posting only to judge the worth of your fellow posters and threatening them - how would the rest of our forum know when you are setting this example in your role of moderator - and when you are doing exactly the same thing as a poster?

So go ahead and see if you can slip another false premise by. But in the meantime, any attacks, or redundant threads will be closed or deleted.
Mick

Who deletes the abusive personal attacks against fellow posters that you set the prime example of posting and for which sadly there are only too many examples of?

And what exactly would you judge to be one of these redundant threads that you threaten you will now close or delete?

Do you not think that our forum should continue be shaped be the public's contributions, rather than which and how many of these contributions you and your anonymous companions can delete?

And as your Chief has now publicly admitted that these measures have failed to bring the required peace - do you also wish to join him in excluding the public from posting BS?

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 02:31 PM

Life isn't perfect yet, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 02:41 PM

Healthy discontent is the prelude to progress.

Mohandas Gandhi

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 03:17 PM

Yes, "healthy" being the key factor in that equation...

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 03:26 PM

Move on down the line

I got to move on, down the line
What's yours is yours, what's mine is mine
There's nothing left, but the lying
Move on down the line

This train we're riding, has reached the end
And it's no good to pretend
We were walking, hand in hand
Into some Promised Land

So long, I won't forget you
But, I never was 'gonna' let you
Tie me up and settle me down
Nothing's lost, nothing's found

The story ends, it's had it's time
And if you look, I'll think you'll find
The bottle's empty, we drunk it dry
There's no need to cry

This dog is happy, it's had it's day
There's really nothing more to say
No need to cut up, don't howl the moon
We don't sing the same tune

No need to tell me, I'm no good
I just thought, you understood
Just like the wind, needs to blow
I've 'gotta' go

Roger Gall..........http://www.mudcat.org/thread.CFM?threadID=12413#162427


Yep, that was Sham back in July of '99. But since only alison and kat responded, The Sham took another shot with his "Warm Goodbye" thread (http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=12450) where he then said:

"I intend to look in from time to time and will hopefully, return if or when I feel that welcome is again there for all."


So Roger........You seem to have changed your mind about things since those days. Since you're so fond of quoting Max's offhand throwaway line about "no rules," don't you think he may have had some other thoughts on the matter since then?   He certainly has added some rules around here. But if you must hold all of us to our previous statements, then start with your own.......I mean you're the one who is so big about leading by example and all. Go for it Pard!!!

LMAO.......I just really do love this joint sometimes. Where else can you find a fucker so tenacious about diddly-shit as Roger? Or what about Joe going bats and trying to appease one and all when it can't be done? I mean like, I like Father Joebro and all but his efforts to keep things in line while trying to be fair are kinda' humorous if you stand back and look at the whole place.

Ya' know it's funny too that for several years back in '98 to say about 2000, we could get a real fight going over "What is Folk?" but it was more of a "fun fight." Today it's a lot easier to get a fight brewing over "What is Censorship." Speaks volumes about what has happened here. The BS was simply a fun adjunct to the music but some didn't like it so it moved below the line. Since then and since 9-11 it seems that threads which were few and far between on contentious issues have become the norm in BS. Now it is time for moderation on a different level and "censorship" is a part of that moderation. Of course what needs to be understood here is that any posting done here or anywhere on the 'net is done as a privilege from the site owner and most offer no right of "free speech."

I am a Mod at one of the larger website message boards. They have 18 active forums and the smallest one is much larger than the 'Cat. There are over 70 Mods and Admins and simple rule which says that if your post is not suitable in any way it can and will be deleted. Threads are under the same guideline and Mods are not asked to explain any thread or post deletion to the member. Only members can post and any complaints go straight to the site administrators. If you complain in another thread or post it gets zapped. I try to give a few warnings but most of the Mods just pull the trigger and that's it. We use "Mod names" different from our membership names and are unknown to the membership. The place runs very smoothly.

The 'Cat is a far different place and I would not like to see it go that route but there are a few things that can be learned from the other sites. Poor Joe could take one lesson for sure and that is not to even try to explain. I have yet to see anyplace he has done that where his answers were suitable to all and generally they just tended to add grist ti "The Great Shambles Cut and Paste Mill."

Anyways........So Rog, what's it to be? Gonna' stick with your words from seven or so years back or are you gonna' hold only Max to his? Or are you going to admit that maybe the times have changed a tad?

I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU but this is the internet and the concept of rights here is a far different one and YES, in this place and this medium and this context, we all sometimes need to censored.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 03:46 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,

Joe I know that you do not consider that such posts as the following past examples 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 do suggest that the evidence speaks for itself.


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-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 04:03 PM

Well said Joe!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 04:05 PM

Yes, "healthy" being the key factor in that equation...

Perhaps in that equation Ghandi would consider an 'unhealthy discontent' - to be contentment?


Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 04:32 PM

Censorship? Heaven forfend!! If posts such as those from the two or three (ok, maybe it's five or six) not-particularly-anonymous-but-excessively-frequent posters were to be censored, those of us who tend to read much more than we write would be deprived of the opportunity to laugh at these people.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 04:38 PM

" We've been taught that our opinions matter"

If you think that your opinions matter to anyone other than yourself, you're delusion

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Big Mick
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 04:38 PM

Notice how Spaw puts a very direct post, good analysis, and asks a decent question, and Roger's response is to avoid answering and shift the subject.

Roger, answer Spaw's questions.

But you won't, because you have no desire to be held accountable.

Do you need to be censored? Yes.

Thanks for finding that "Farewell...." thread, Spawzer. I was trying to find it the other day.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 04:38 PM

Shambles again (14 April 7:42) Quotes

Explain the BS rules - 26 Oct 99

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.
Max

O.k. It may have been true that in 1999 no rules were needed, and members could be expected to post responsibly. However, since then things have moved on, and rules now appear to be necessary.

Two simple questions which could clarify matters:

1, Would this forum work better without Joe Offer?

2, Would this forum work better without Shambles?

I know I would answer only one of the above in the negative!

CHEERS
Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 04:53 PM

Shambles,

you are so much more funny in this thread when you try to be serious than in the 'peace' thread when you try to be funny. Seeing you judging the worth of fellow posters's posts and fellow posters makes me laugh out loud.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 05:10 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: ClintonHammond - PM
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 04:38 PM

" We've been taught that our opinions matter"

If you think that your opinions matter to anyone other than yourself, you're delusion(al).

They matter enough that my government periodically goes to great expense to allow me to express them upon a piece of paper called a "ballot". Other than that, you're probably right.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 05:14 PM

No, no, Clinton, he's in a state of delusion. He's experiencing delusion. It's a far less belligerent state of delusion than yours, but it still qualifies.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 05:17 PM

Okay. Maybe I'm delusional about the ballot thing as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 05:21 PM

Do I %$%#in' need to be *^$^ censored? Yer &^%$$$$/!! right I need to be censored!!! With all these stupid *%##%! ^@#$@&&ers *^#$$^ing around and trying to $@#$# chimps I %$@#!@! need to be %^#@#@! censored plenty! As far as I'm concerned you $@$%@$on' human %##@#s can all go ^#%#$#%$#$^#%#! yourselves!!!

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 05:23 PM

I'm from the ArtBrooks school of thought on this. I love this place!
Above the line, you can get words, lyrics, chords music, etc., and the occasional civil discussion about songs/music.

Below the line, and I really like this, it's a fucking soap opera!

You have your good characters and your bad characters, the villains and the villainesses, the nice guys and the not so nice guys having it out.
As long as no one is using his or her real name, they are all actors playing parts.

It beats the hell out of Days of Our Lives, General Hospital, and for you folks on the other side of the water, Coronation St. or East Enders.

So, when I can, I tune in each day for a good laugh or a doleful sigh at the carryings-on in our own little Mudcat soap opera.

Once in a while it even becomes a Brit-style pantomime where, when the villain enters everyone hisses or boos, and when the hero or heroine enters everyone cheers.
We can even get the equivalent of "Look out! He's behind you!" when a nasty character
lures the innocent hero/heroine into his trap.

I love it! Please don't stop.

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 05:25 PM

$%%@%#in' right, Seamus!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 05:38 PM

Yo, Chongo! You da man..er..simian!

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Janie
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 05:38 PM

Daggum, Foolstroupe, I always admired Jay Baldwin but I never knew before that he was quoted in the Bible! Wise man, he. Eh?

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 06:06 PM

Chongo seems to be channeling Shane.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 06:18 PM

Yeah, it does sound like that, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Apr 06 - 06:37 PM

A good old Cat fight can be quite fun at times...

But I like it best when it turns into irreverant frivolity.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 02:35 AM

Stay tuned! Coming up int the next episode of As The Mudcat Turns...........

What?

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 05:53 AM

The only option open to anyone who does like what other people choose to post on our forum is to leave.

To post only to judge the worth of your fellow posters, to call them names, or to attempt to bully them in any way in some effort to get them to leave or to change is not only is pointless - it is counter-productive.

The only option open is for you - is to leave.

At one time I took this course and stopped posting. But when I thought about this decision - I realised that it was me who liked and accepted the principles of the forum that Max founded it on and that I was leaving because other posters who were staying, did not like nor accept these founding principles.

So it made little sense for me to stop contributing as the same posters were still constantly moaning about having to put-up with what others posted and obviously were never goung to be happy with what ever changes they managed to get imposed upon our forum.

So I decided that if any poster did not like what I or any other poster chose to post that it was none of their business and that if they did not accept Max's founding principles - it was they who should stop contributing here, stop pushing to change our forum to their tastes and start their own.

Now that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff has publicly admitted his failure to impose his required 'peace' and has formally proposed to Max that the posting of BS be brought under further control by him and confined to members only - there is no going back from this point.

I see no public statements to the effect that Max has changed his basic wishes and founding principles for our forum nor that he is going to accept the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff's proposal.

So until I read otherwise - I and I hope others will continue - despite the bullying- to try and post on our forum according to these principles.

And if other posters do not like this - they are free to form a forum of their own - with as much imposed censorship, limitation and personal judgements of each other as they wish............

Do you need to be censored?

No I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:08 AM

Shambles-you bloddy mone to mutch.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:26 AM

O.k. It may have been true that in 1999 no rules were needed, and members could be expected to post responsibly. However, since then things have moved on, and rules now appear to be necessary.

What are the reasons why members could be expected to post responsibly in 1999 but not expected to do so in 2006?

As many of the members are still the same members in 1999 as they are in 2006 - what is the main element that has changed in this time?

Could one factor be that there are now many levels of poster and that all are now encouraged by the example set - to publicly judge the worth of each other? Even though the site's owner is still happy to invite everyone to contribute to our forum?

Guests, named-guests, named members with edit buttons, unamed members with edit buttons and members without edit buttons and Joe Offer, The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff?

I make that six levels of poster.

Perhaps when all posters post once again on equal terms and are encouraged to concentrate on their own posts and once again to tolerate the posts of others - the imposition of more and more rules will not appear to be necessary at all?

Especially when all those who do not accept Max's principles of opening our forum to the public - will have left to form their own private members forum which conforms to their own tastes.

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:09 AM

The end result of all the dissent sown by The Shambles is likely to be Max pulling the plug on the whole site. Why should he have to put up with all the shite he gets, and pay for it too, out of his own pocket?
I know that I would have done so some time ago, who needs all the whining that Roger puts out?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:13 AM

i thought we all donated money to this site so it can maintained?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Alba
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:38 AM

How much do you think it takes to keep this place running Guest...not nearly as much as it gets in the way of donations that's for sure...and considering a lot of people work behind the scenes for nothing, zero...can you imagine if they had to get paid into the bargain.
No the Mudcat comes to us virtually free.
Can you feel the Love and the Gratitude for that..*smile*
J

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:44 AM

Two more examples of 'love and graditute'.

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 03:28 PM

I also find it an interesting challeng to respond to insults without resorting to insults. Although I guess I have to admit that I have sometimes given in to that temptation, I think I generally do a pretty good job of expressing myself rationally and with good humor..

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 12 Aug 05 - 03:30 PM

You see, Roger, most of us are here to have a good time among friends. All of your adversarial crap is just that - adversarial crap. We volunteers do what we need to do to keep the peace and tidy things up. Nobody's out to offend your right to free speech - but if you insist on making an asshole of yourself, you're likely to be treated like an asshole. Basically, Mudcat is here for enjoyment - not for all this heavy stuff you try to lay on us. You want to play war games, and that's not what we're here for.

No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems.

If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Alba
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:49 AM

Yawn

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:51 AM

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:54 AM

Ooh quick matron the screens, I think I'm going to laugh uncontrollably!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:58 AM

Censorship, like charity, should begin at home, but, unlike charity, it should end there.

Clare Boothe Luce

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Alba
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:59 AM

Deep Breaths now Giok. We wouldn't want you to be having a wee laugh.
Wid yi ever catch a grip and get serious.

Och Doctor Finlay the patient isnae responding...

ROFLMAO too!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: bobad
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:10 AM

"Unless you are prepared to give up something valuable you will never be able to truly change at all, because you'll be forever in the control of things you can't give up."
Andy Law
Creative Company

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:10 AM

Some of your funniest stuff yet Roger!!!!

Ya' gotta' love a post where Sham bitches about "judging others" which is made up almost exclusively of personal judgements and opinions. It doubles up as well when he bullies others to leave and then complains about bullying.

Go for it Sham. Like Seamus and others have mentioned, you have a future with soaps! Call the BBC.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:15 AM

BTW, I would be remiss if I didn't bite here so here we go.......

Okay Sham......I know I'm going to regret this.........You seem to have added a new phrase to your volumes of "Sham's Liturgical Bullshit." What the fuck are these "founding principles?" I get this vision of Max in colonial garb and sitting with Franklin and Jefferson................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Alba
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:17 AM

Thanks Spaw...just spat Coffee on the Screen need to go and get a Kitchen Towel...rofl

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:56 AM

Spaw, had to change keyboards, a mouthfull of coffee was a bit too much for it.

I am really new here compared to others and had a tendency to try to protect "The Shambles"

Now I must say that the Mudcat isn't really a true democracy but comes so close. With that view, I believe it is imperative for all to relent somewhat and obey the somewhat meager rules. This continual harping is a waste.
Roger, from now on when I see your name in a thread, I shall disregard all those posts. Fall back a bit and relinquish this attack. No one is going to win with the exception of the board.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:12 AM

I like to think that Max opens threads like this, gets his morning giggles, and goes on with his real life.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:26 AM

" What the fuck are these "founding principles?"

If anyone really needs to ask (and using such language to do it) - they are sure to find a welcome in the new private members club that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team are going to start.

The founding priciples of this new club would appear to require its members to be as intolerant and as unpleasant as possible and to encourage them to gang-up and bully anyone who may not be in total agreement.

The founding principles of Max's forum were (and to the best of my knowledge hope still are) to enable all the public's different views to be accomodated and for these to be safely expressed without them being subject to and inhibited by bullying.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Big Mick
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:31 AM

One more attempt by you to say something as if it were true, or as if you were a respected founding member. Neither of these are true.

There is no founding principle such as you have stated as Spaw points out.

And if one puts in the internet addy he provided above, they will see that you were known as a person who only knows how to complain and moan and set yourself up as some kind of heroic figure. Again, none of which is true.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:42 AM

Well, well, well...

I've kinda kept out of this food fight because seems that I have become one of the more popular punching bags of "guestdom" and Bush apologists but...

...with that said, yeah, there are times when posts need to be deleted or threads closed which has nuthin' to do with one's posting history, reputation, etc...

Okay, a little "comic relief" doesn't kill a thread but when a poster's only motivation is to highjack the spirit of a discussion or debate then those posts should be yanked... I've had many of my threads highjacked by the same ol' IP's... (Joe knows who they are...)... There was a period of time when I couldn't hickup without one certain individual responding with the same ol' crap... We all know who that the indivual is...

An' yeah, it does make you angry when you made the effort to put forth a "thought out" opinion only to have someone, who obviously has no real rebuttal, to resort to name calling... Name callin', for those folks who might not have taken' "Debating 101", is ***not*** a rebuttal...

But I can see how we have all come to such a point... I mean, all one has to do is look around the polorization that has set upon our society... And though, IMO, most of it has can be blamed on the dogmatism of Bushites, those of us on the other side have ceratinly gone for the bait more often than we should... Speaking of the Bushites, as their positions have become less and less defendable it is no wonder that most of the name calling is coming from them... Yeah, if one wants to say "Hey, Bobert's pointing fingers", fine... I am doing just that!!! Guilty as charged... But those are my obseravtions...

I mean, just look at how much CarolC gets attacked personally??? And for what??? Making good arguments??? Or Amos??? Or me???

Like I said, if someone can't keep up witha discussion intellectually and finds throwing stink bombs at folks who can, give those stink bombs the ax...

IMHO...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:00 AM

Ain't he cute playing the 'foundamentalist'? Pretending that he does not see that he violates his own principles in each of his posts? Really funny are his "you may not have seen" posts repeating a text from a few posts above in a way that is meant to make the self serving 'let me rub it under your noses' motivation look like a positive contribution to a community. Don't you get the impression that he collects all the harsh words spoken to him to sport them like generals sport medals?

The only sad thing is that if he had something new and potentially valuable to say it might not be noticed among all that repetitive garbage he posts. His very methods of fighting for a cause diminishes the chances of him winning an argument. So, I think he does not really want what he seems to argue for, deep inside he masochistically likes his role.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:10 AM

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: clairerise
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:30 AM

yes shambles. occasionally yes

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:45 AM

oooooooooooooooo!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:50 AM

Wolfgang you've got to stop all this psycho-analysis!!
The inner workings of the human mind are much too confusing for a Conservative...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:19 AM

Wolfgang,

First of all...

...bite me (Bobert's attempt at comic relief..)

But let's get real here, Wolfster... Okay, I openly challenged a Bushite to pick a Bush policy that he/she felt that he/she could defend... He/she picked Bush's handlin' of Katrina... No this wasn't two weeks a go but long, long ago before the truth started making it into the press...

Well, I laid out my positions and opinions, which BTW turned out to the "real story" (i.e. the truth) and all I got in the way of rebuttals was the same old crap that you have posted above... That is not a rebuttal but a tirade...

Might of ***fact***, just about everything I argued in the mad-dash-to-Iraq turned out to be, ahhhhh, facts as well... Hmmmmmmm???

So, hey, sorry you don't like the message or the messenger but if you want to debate policies you are going to have to get beyond your generalizations and, more than that, your "projections"...

"Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself..."

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:31 AM

Was not Wolfgang referring to "The Shambles"?

What is this, guilt by association? (11:19 AM post)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:34 AM

pssst, Beaubay. I think the Wolf is speaking about the Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:37 AM

My deepest apologies to Wolfgang... Unless, of course, he was aiming his post at me... No, forget the "unless" part...

I'm sorry...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:53 AM

I've re-read Wolfgangs post ..."masochist", "fundamentalist" "psychlogically flawed" "sad", "repetitive", "egomaniacal poster of garbage".

Could be any of us......actually....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:26 PM

Yeah, Ake, I think most of us are so used to being attacked that, hey, they read an attack and automatically think it's them that is under attack... Maybe I'm more sensitive but, hey, I have sho nuff come under a lot of not-so-friendly fire in my years of coming here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:15 PM

Perhaps I ought to be censored for getting hundredth posts !

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:16 PM

Like this one !!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:17 PM

yes..perhaps you should..*grin*...I saw 199 and thought.."go for it"..but the minute I saw Leadfingers name, I knew I was too late...

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:37 PM

HI! Greetings from London

bobert, I figure you are referring to me. Oh well. so what. I've never hesitated to say I thought you were a fool with your bushite obsessions. Everyone who doesn't agree with you on anything is a bushite. That makes you a bulshttite.

You were so easily identifiable as this so early on.

And big Mick, I see no reason at all for you to say Shambles should be censored. For what? Stating an opinion you don't like or agree with? that's been the case pretty much with me. Oooooooooooooohh, he used some colorful language that attacked my senses! If you had any sensability, you wouldn't feel so offended or attacked.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Janie
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:47 PM

Bobert, what I observe in a lot of threads, especially but not only those about politics, is a tendency for people to come across as "My way is the right way and if you disagree with me you must be a wanker or an idiot." And I note that in posts from people from all parts of the politcal spectrum. It is very easy to convey that attitude whether one uses clearly insulting, personal terms, or is more subtle, sarcastic and/or passive-aggressive.

    Emotional reasoning takes over, people become disrespectful of one another, fail to acknowledge those parts of another's argument that are valid, and in doing so, undermine their own ability to convey the validity of their own viewpoint. Many if not most involved in the thread become defensive, and everybody feels like everybody else is attacking them, when in fact, many of the posters are indeed attacking each other. "Hey--it ain't me that's the problem, it's you!" Egos and ids start bouncing all over the place, and very little that is useful to anyone comes from the thread. It just turns into a big brawl. As Bill D. observed in another thread. If you enter the arena in a combative fashion, some one will do combat with you. Most of the political threads become combative as all get-out. And those on the left tend to be just as combative as those on the right.

Oh well.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:51 PM

Exactly right, Janie. That's what happens, and it's pretty standard human behaviour. "Winning" the argument and scoring points on one's detested opponent(s) rapidly becomes the only thing that really matters to most of the participants. It's silly, but very predictable. Dogs behave the same way. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 02:03 PM

Yes but what else have the romans ever done for us?

The purpose of an amphitheatre is to enable public contests and other entertainments to take plave - often to the death.

The purpose of a forum is simply to enable a discussion to take place.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 02:13 PM

Hi Bobert. I appreciate you sticking up for me, but please don't worry on my account.

Some people use personal attacks as a way of trying to stifle debate (on certain subjects) but that's never worked on me and it's not likely to.

Hope you're having a wonderful spring where you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: clairerise
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 02:18 PM

i go on a few like mudcat forums. and they are better managed. but you guys do a great job here. dont get me wrong.

but moderated forums or members only, which still means anyone can join just gets rid of those pesty guests starting trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,DECISION TIME
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 02:30 PM

For all the bellyaching both sides.

Perhaps now is the time for moderators to MAKE A DECISION to put an end to all these threads. So....howzaboutit?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 02:43 PM

The chief moderator HAS made a decision for the time being....to NOT delete most threads unless there are clear personal attacks* and/or excessive bad language.

*attacks does NOT mean teasing, parody or general criticism

Joe has stated over & over that he strives to allow the most freedom that he can justify.....with the disclaimer that there are always borderline cases. A thread can bubble along with only mild sniping until someone escalates it to a nasty level. Then the choice becomes.. delete individual messages, close the thread.....or delete the entire thread, which messes up the flow of thoughts.

Such a job to have!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 02:47 PM

"which still means anyone can join just gets rid of those pesty guests starting trouble." Clairise

I have no idea of how many or how often Mudcat members log off and come back as Guests but I expect that there are some, for whatever reason or rationale. Should we go to members only on the BS section I assume that would eliminate that capability.

I don't know that that would be a problem. There are times, I can understand, when a member doesn't want to identify her or himself on a delicate subject but there's nothing to keep that person from presenting the subject as being posted for the proverbial friend, is there? (Bobert is very good at it, right? *G*)

I'm for q members only ruling in order to get a handle on gratuitous nastiness. If we are all visible and accountable surely that would cut down on incidents of 'road rage'. (I just had an image of someone on the freeway giving an irate finger to someone and discovering that it was someone he knew and truly did not want to offend. Members only postings would minimize that kind of incident.)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 02:55 PM

I see a personal attack here. Catter "A" says that he has come under personal attack. Registered member "B" says "you must be talking about me" and uses that pretext to launch a personal attack using fowl language. Returning to the subject, I think it is policy to censor personal attacks and in this case at the very least, I would applaud the censorship of personal attacks.











B.S. Yes, fowl as in chicken.

P.S. Yes B.S. as in most of this post is tongue in cheek. But you may find some insight or wisdom in there if you look for it. Or not. Its not important. This is just a discussion forum and I'm just discussing.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 02:57 PM

"or members only"

Mudcat doesn't have the technology to be members only....

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,jts
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 02:59 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,DECISION TIME
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 02:30 PM

For all the bellyaching both sides.

Perhaps now is the time for moderators to MAKE A DECISION to put an end to all these threads. So....howzaboutit?

Guest, did you read the tread. This thread was closed and reopened. Obviously the decision has been made NOT to do away with "these" threads. Which was a good thing for you. because now you have had YOUR chance to bellyache.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 03:43 PM

Tune in again next time to hear Shambles say...........

And watch as Little Hawk responds with.......

Can JTS ever make up with Martin G, and will CarolC stand idly by if he does?

Will Martin G experience a life-changing epiphany whereby he loves everything about Britain and the Brits?

Life goes on here in As The Mudcat Turns...don't touch that dial.


Seamus (your announcer)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 03:48 PM

I'm not tuning in unless clinton is in the next episode.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 03:51 PM

Seamus, remember this Old Chestnut?? From sitcom to soap, that's about got it!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 04:06 PM

Higgledy Piggledy
Seamus O'Kennedy
Ringside announcer
And match referee

Strumming his guitar so
Elegantistic'ly
He'll work for beers and
That's almost for free

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 04:34 PM

As long as you can't see through the beer, CarolC.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 05:56 PM

Seamus, the answer to your question is "who the fuck cares?"

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:00 PM

I've re-read Wolfgangs post ..."masochist", "fundamentalist"... (Ake)

Ake, so you say you have read my post twice and still didn't read it correctly as your misquote shows?

I have not written 'fundamentalist'. I have written 'foundamentalist' and have put it in inverted commas to make clear (so I thought, obviously wrongly) that it was not a typo.

Make a page search for 'found...' and you'll find who is repeatedly using expressions like 'founding principles'. Then you know whom I did call 'foundamentalist'. This 'word' does not apply to all of you.

Bobert, sorry, but I'm a bit slow in thinking and typing when I think about how to be creative in English, so your post above mine was not yet there when I penned my post. But I realise how it must have looked at the first glance directly under your post.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:03 PM

Seamus Cares. He said so. Any other questions? LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:28 PM

The people who keep logging in and going to these threads care, that's who!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:39 PM

I'd recommend that friend Shambles rereads David Copperfield, and has a think about the character Mr Dick.

The point is Mr Dick is a lovely man, with some very sensible suggestions - but he does have a certain tendency to drag the case of the unfortunate King Charles the First into the conversation at every opportunity, and even when there is no opportunity.

Mind, there are worse obsessions...

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:52 PM

Do you need to be censored?

If a large proportion of those commenting say yes, then you probably ought to think carefully about what you say, or at least how you say it.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:02 PM

I think the count of those who think they do need to be censored - is currently 3.

Most of the 200+ posts have yet to answer the question.

If the question were - do you think that others need to be censored - I suspect there would be more answers provided.

But censorship does not work like that. At least for most of us it doesn't.

But I suspect that many posters are being very careful about what they are seen to be saying. And that is sad - for all of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:07 PM

For

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:24 PM

The chief moderator HAS made a decision for the time being....to NOT delete most threads unless there are clear personal attacks* and/or excessive bad language.

The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has stated that -

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

So until he changes his mind and also closes this thread - in this thread I can make as many personal attacks as I wish and use as much excessive bad language as any of the edit button holders are normally permitted to use.

But as I find it easy not to indulge in personal attacks on my fellow posters and not to respond in kind to the many posts encouraged to be addressed to or about me, containing only this - and I can say whatever I need to say without setting the example of using bad language - there is not a problem.

Luckily for the rest of our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:33 PM

Of course I'd need to be censored if I said stuff that merits being censored. It hasn't happened yet, but no doubt it could. I've written a few posts that I've thought better of, and scruibbed. If I had posted them I'd be quite glad for them to be blocked or excised.

I think it's a good principle to delay sending anything written in anger, most especially when it's a riposte to someone else's post.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:36 PM

This one has just been subject to imposed closure - but perhaps the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team is not aware that one of his team has taken this action?

The need to control other people

And when he does find out - perhaps he will also re-open that thread?

---

Yes, I am aware of it. We have this thread open [and it will remain open while the discussion continues]. It serves as the current place where people can voice their complaints about our editing. One thread at a time on the subject is enough.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:37 PM

Yo, Leadfingers... I'z renamin' you Leadcounter... That was the 200th post, not the 100th... But, heck, I don't care if you can count 'er not, you can still play in my band any time you want...

And, I gotta disagree wid Bunnahabhain... There are times when folks who have no defense will try to over compensate witha strong offense... Well, in a forum such as Mudact, that offense can derail otherwise perfectly good discussions... That is where you have the proverbial bandmate who didn't bother to tune his instrument... It kinda ruins it for those who are in tune... And in tune is not meant to mean in agreement... But, at the very least, on topic...

As fir winning v. not winning??? It really ain't about that... No one wins these things... All that we can hope to do is lay out our arguments and opinions and hope that somewhere someone will be influenced to look at an issue in a different light...

Like do I think I'm going to change Martin Gibson's thinking or values??? Hey, I might be crazy but I ain't friggin' stupid here... No, I realize that Martin and I aren't going to change each other... Nor are DougR and me... But, hey, the eternal optimist in me says "Hey, Bobert, there are may be some other folks out there that are on the fence so don't let these guys have the last word..."

And, yeah, now that Martin has identified himself as the *unidentified* person in my earlier post I will say that Martin has single handedly sabotaged many anti-Bush threads here in the Catbox... And, yeah, I do have a problem with that because in doing that Martin, in essence, was the one doing the censoring, not the moderators... That shouldn't be the case... The inmates shouldn't run the asylum...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:43 PM

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:44 PM

The inmates shouldn't run the asylum...

LOL.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:01 PM

THE CONCEPT OF POST COUNTING IS ALWAYS "THE HUNDREDTH POST"

Leadfinger is on target with his math - someone else isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:02 PM

NOT ON A CATTLE RANCH!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:08 PM

Sorry, GUEST, I hadn't gotten the updated rulebook... Danged mail been runnin' awfully slow???

But, no matter, no reason to scream... Hate to read in tomorrow's news that you done blowed a cork an' was in ICU...

Yo, Leadfingers... Yer still in this ol' hillbilly's band...

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,sad old **** / ****
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:23 PM

we are all a bunch of sad old *****

[clones.. * please feel free to substitute "*****" ]



why else would we come here to burden the world
with our so near to death
bitter grudges..!!!!??


except for me.. i'm quite a happy bloke !



[and guess what ,my post 15 Apr 06 - 10:01 PM was deleted completely;
even though I most cordially invited the clones to just ammend 2 trouublesome words.. [both being ****]


..funny old world !!??

Actually I tried to just ****out the offensive word, but I couldn't change it in your "name". Hence I could get it out of the message, but not the name. I deleted it because the term was offensive to females.

Mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 03:53 AM

You may have missed the following as it was inserted into an existing post and did not refresh the thread.

Yes, I am aware of it. We have this thread open [and it will remain open while the discussion continues]. It serves as the current place where people can voice their complaints about our editing. One thread at a time on the subject is enough.
-Joe Offer-

Or else?

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 03:58 AM

Do we need to curb the troublemakers   seems to have escaped being subject to imposed closure?

So far..........

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 10:48 AM

The two guests in a row were not the same.

Guest #2, were you referring to fence 'posts'?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,C. Ham
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 11:18 AM

Some people use personal attacks as a way of trying to stifle debate (on certain subjects) but that's never worked on me and it's not likely to.

I've run into personal attacks like that myself. I have been called "troll" and "Martin Gibson" by CarolC because I voiced support for a respected Muslim commentator, Irshad Manji, whose opinions run contrary to CarolC's orthodoxy.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 11:40 AM

That is what I see as the 'problem' that shortens good discourse, C.Ham

Often one comes up with a viewpoint that is in opposition to and is then accused of being a racist, war monger, non-recipient of the correct news information (as the other discerns it), or things like "you must be on drugs". I enjoy when I read the defense from some who are unaware of what or who they sound like during their regular posting escapades.

One must learn ro completely disregard the tirades from those who think they know it all and cannot even for a minute, contemplate let alone understand, an alternative point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 11:49 AM

Yes I was.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 12:41 PM

Do you consider someone mistaking you for Martin Gibson to be a personal attack, GUEST,C. Ham?

And a troll is someone who posts specifically for the purpose of trying to elicit an emotional response from someone else. Are you doing that?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 12:42 PM

By the way, I'm pretty sure I know who you are, GUEST,C. Ham.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 01:04 PM

Here is the "personal attack" that you have been harping on in threads lately, GUEST,C. Ham...

Subject: RE: BS: Irshad Manji on the wall
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 03:23 PM

Guest,C Ham (aka: Martin Gibson), could you please post some links to Manji speaking out against the Israeli occupation? I'd like to see that.

And by the way, Martin, we don't live in a trailer out in the middle of nowhere any more. We live in a house... in a city.


This is the post of yours I was responding to...

Subject: RE: BS: Irshad Manji on the wall
From: GUEST,C. Ham - PM
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 02:45 PM

Irhad Mani doesn't sit in some tin trailer in the middle of nowhere typing out lies for a small band of followers on a webchat forum. She is out there, putting herself at risk, all over North America, Europe and the Middle East day after day. She is a hero.


I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves who was trying to stifle debate.

BTW, have I just responded to a troll or not? What would the moderators have to say about this? It's a tricky question, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 01:18 PM

No one's a troll until a 'moderator' says that person is a troll. It seems not to be the first remark by a 'troll' that is wrong--it is the response to the troll that is wrong. Go figger.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 01:25 PM

(lest I be accused of not including all of the parts of GUEST,C. Ham's post that I was responding to, this is the other part:

She is hardly a "tool" of the Israeli government. She has spoken out, in Israel, against the occupation and she regularly speaks out against the Israeli occupation to mainstream Jewish audiences in North America and Europe.)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 01:27 PM

"A troll is someone who posts specifically for the purpose of trying to elicit an emotional response from someone else."

Right. That being the case, I think we are almost all trolls from time to time. The nameless troll is a bit more annoying to most people than the troll who posts under a known identity.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 01:45 PM

That may be so, LH, BUT: There is a world of difference when you pose as Shane and say outrageous shit because the folks who read your posts KNOW it's you and that you are a good man. Some shithead who makes remarks as a GUEST doing the same thing just gets lotsa folks pissed off for no reason because there is no context to put the remarks in.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 02:18 PM

It is wrong to respond to trolls. If the volunteers see a troll post asap, they can take care of it. If several well-meaning, or not, people respond before they can take care of it, then it becomes more of a problem than the initial post. Best thing for everyone to do; if you see a troll report it on the Help or by PM to Joe or another volunteer whom you may know. Do not respond in the troll thread; leave it alone. Of course, saying this is like pissing in the wind...Mudcat is notorious for NOT taking that lesson to heart. One can only hope, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 02:34 PM

A few posts back, Shambles compared himself to Ghandi. The thought occured then that perhaps he should compare himself also to another Staunch Defender of Freedom of Speech.

It was just a passing thought; and I don't mean to say that Shambles is like either Ghandi or this other prophet. I will not venture to suggest which end of the spectrum between the two lies (no pun intended) closest to Shambles' position(s).

I will note that the link is to the "official" biography written by the prophet himself, and does bear a slight resemblence to "Shambles methods" for making the truth appear somewhat different than reality. Some who may be familiar with the teachings of this prophet may understand(?).

I have looked briefly at the list of 10,368 posts by Shambles since he "rejoined" us in August 2004, and don't find any that stand out as anything I'm sorry I missed. I have read this thread in its entirety, and don't find it a total waste of time as there were a half dozen quite interesting opinions expressed. I'm sorry, Shambles; but none of them were yours.

I do find lots of cut-and-paste, reminiscent of undergraduate researchers who mistake out of context plagiarism for research; but few actual opinions, so I must presume Shambles doesn't really have any. (An evaluation subject to amendment, but I'll not make a special point to look for a contrary example.) I made a special effort to look for pasteups that did have a cogent context to give some validity to their being pasted - and didn't find any really significant ones.

I did find the pasting of Joe's comment specifically dealing with editing of PMs as a "proof" that Joe lied about editing of public thread posts somewhat offensive, but not surprising.

And I do rather feel that the extrapolation of Joe's re-opening of the thread into a guarantee that individual posts containing personal attacks are immune in this thread extremely childish (but consistent).

Altogether, I think I'm rather bored with this.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 02:41 PM

A good and fair asessment I think John. Nice to see a well thought out post.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 02:44 PM

So, in conclusion . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 02:49 PM

There is a difference between a troll and someone who just wants an emotional response though, LH, and I guess I should have said that in my earlier post. A troll is specifically looking to get an angry response to his or her post, or he or she is trying to get other people to fight with each other. It's not always easy to determine who is doing this and who isn't though, and that can be a bit of a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 02:51 PM

"and that can be a bit of a problem."

I would suggest that that can be MOST of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 07:01 PM

Hi Martin. Hope the Brits are taking good care of you.
In answer to your question, apparently the entire cast of this soap opera cares, or they wouldn't continue to keep it going.

Meanwhile, back in As the Mudcat Turns, will Clinton Hammond .............?

And will Spaw's evil twin who had amnesia turn up to sow dissent among the 'Catters?

Will CarolC's double-dactyls land her in hot water with the poetry fundies?

Also watch for a brief guest appearance from WYSIWYG in a cameo with Mbo at her side.

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 01:51 AM

No one's a troll until a 'moderator' says that person is a troll

As this is one of the lesser names that I have publicly been called by The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff, most of the named edit button holders and anonyomous ones - does this mean that I am officially now all of these things?

To all those who would post only to judge me or any other poster's worth and those who rush to post only to agree - will you please accept that as we have as much right to have our say here as anyone else and if you do not like sharing our forum with all those posters who Max has invited - no one is stopping you from leaving.

As demonstrated over many year of seemingly having to be be subjected to this for expressing and evidencing a view - none of these personal judgements made of me by my fellow posters will result in me stopping being a contributor here. So perhaps some attnetion could be made to the thread's subject matter - rather than concentrating on the thread's originator (who has already read it all)?

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 02:00 AM

A few posts back, Shambles compared himself to Ghandi.

Perhaps the rest of a personal judgement of the worth of a fellow poster that starts off with the assumption that the posting of a quotation means that the poster is comparing themselves to the person who made the quote - should be read with caution - if such a post really needs to be posted in the first place?

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 02:15 AM

self-editing is like getting a good haircut. People can see you better.

small is beautiful

less is more

um..

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 02:26 AM

I did find the pasting of Joe's comment specifically dealing with editing of PMs as a "proof" that Joe lied about editing of public thread posts somewhat offensive, but not surprising.

I think perhaps what is surprising is how selective some posters can be about what they find offensive? It is not seemingly offensive conduct for a poster to be subjected to personal judgements and abuse from a so-called moderator but it would appear to be offensive for the victim to quote it as the firm evidence of this conduct.

For without providing such evidence - these offensive posts from moderators are publicly denied' minimised or justified.

Given the extent and nature of many of the personal judgements encouraged to be publicly made about this fellow posters by the usual suspects over this long time - it is probably understandable for a 'newer' poster to assume there is some real justification for such a concerted reaction.................The fact is there isn't. I just hold, express and evidence a different view.

But I do not see the 'comment specifically dealing with editing of PMs' - that you find so offensive. Nor the accusation of mine that you refer to.

Perhaps you could clear this up?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 02:33 AM

when a post is made (in the middle of a forest of posts), and nobody reads it, does that post exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 04:15 AM

Rape is the only crime in which the victim becomes the accused.

Freda Adler

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 05:07 AM

Roger, it's your endless repetition that causes most of the opprobrium you get.
The insertion of other peoples quotations in connection with this monotonous diatribe is at best dubious, and are at worst irrelevant non sequiturs.
You see we all know what your view is but you insist on repeating it ad nauseam, and ad infinitum. It is therefore no wonder that the responses keep coming.
As you have told us many times, it is not necessary to respond to your posts, it is equally unnecessary for you to continually re-post your unchanging and obviously unchangeable views.
I therefore suggest that the number of judgements on your obsession will decrease in direct proportion to your not posting the same words over and over again. The only thing that seems to change is the order in which you post these words in an apparently endless stream.
In short, the less you post, the less people will respond!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 05:55 AM

You see we all know what your view is but you insist on repeating it ad nauseam, and ad infinitum. It is therefore no wonder that the responses keep coming.

If there is a logic there - can someone please explain this.

Like most posters, I post in order to get responses - hopefully to what I may say in these posts rather than on how my personal worth may be publicly judged by by my invited fellow guests.

If you are bored or in any other way disenchanted by mine or anyone else's posts - the answer must be pretty clear now - even to the my most committed of my stalkers.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Alba
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 06:07 AM

The Freda Adler quote. Anyone care to expand on it's context within this Thread topic?
Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 06:18 AM

It would seem that there are crimes like rape and child abuse where the victim becomes the accused.

Where the victim subjected to this form of bullying becomes subject to yet more when they dare to try to bring the truth of the complaint out in the open.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Alba
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 06:34 AM

Interesting 'take' on the subject matter of Adler's qoute.
Can't say I see the connection with this Thread topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 07:02 AM

.........Oh me too.........

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: kendall
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 07:12 AM

Stalkers? Are you serious?
Logic? I understand what Giok said, and he's right.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 07:28 AM

So what it all boils down to is this.
Roger posts to elicit responses. (He said so)
Roger doesn't like most of our responses (He says so endlessly)
Roger only posts in order to get the responses he wants, and is upset when it doesn't happen that way.
Ergo....Roger is a control freak (Yes that logical conclusion is a personal judgement by me, based on evidence supplied by you Roger!)
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 09:00 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 04:15 AM

Rape is the only crime in which the victim becomes the accused.

Freda Adler

******************************************************************

"If I laugh at any mortal thing, tis that I may not weep."...Lord Byron (George Gordon)

Pardon me for laughing here but it is as Byron says......Are you really so pathetic Roger that you are comparing some BSing on an internet forum with RAPE? Man, I really do fear for your mental health! You were really just joking right?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 10:17 AM

You may have missed the following editing comment - as it was inserted into an existing thread and did not refresh the thread

Actually I tried to just ****out the offensive word, but I couldn't change it in your "name". Hence I could get it out of the message, but not the name. I deleted it because the term was offensive to females.

Mudelf

The following post seems to have escaped the attention and imposed censorship of our anonymous protector.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:15 AM

BTW, I would be remiss if I didn't bite here so here we go.......

Okay Sham......I know I'm going to regret this.........You seem to have added a new phrase to your volumes of "Sham's Liturgical Bullshit." What the fuck are these "founding principles?" I get this vision of Max in colonial garb and sitting with Franklin and Jefferson................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 10:24 AM

I agree Sham.......The phrase "Sham's Liturgical Bullshit" is offensive to both women AND men.............And BTW, we are still operating on your "founding principles" as you chose to call them. Actually this is just a grand experiment of the Spiegel lad and I know he's enjoying it!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Pseudolus
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 11:42 AM

Reading Sham's posts is like watching a soap opera. you can leave for months and come back to the same conversation. Only difference is, more substance in the soap opera.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 11:46 AM

If you are bored or in any other way disenchanted by mine or anyone else's posts - the answer must be pretty clear now - even to the my most committed of my stalkers.

Has the penny really not dropped yet?

Do you need to be cnsored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 08:52 PM

Where has my little Scotch stalkers usual post after mine gone?

It was here when I last looked and I judged that post was speaking a lot of sense.

Did it need to be censored for this reason?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Alba
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 09:01 PM

Ah the dreaded stalking by a Dram of Whiskey...that can be quite a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:39 AM

Pseudolus, fuck off and get your own analogy!

I started the soap opera analogy a while back, and you're jumping in on it now!

It's MY analogy, ya prick!

Go and think up something original!

Respectfully yours.

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:52 AM

Ah the dreaded stalking by a Dram of Whiskey...that can be quite a problem.

Now I seem to be stalked by a double Scotch.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:57 AM

Go and think up something original!

How about this?

A true jellyfish story

You do seem to need analogy - but do you need to be censored and someone to protect you from the true jellyfish?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:51 AM

Do we need to curb the troublemakers?   

Has now been subject to imposed closure - by persons unknown and for reasons unstated.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 03:03 AM

Meanwhile 'the mob' - once encouraged are still 'out for blood' on the following.....Which remains open.

Martin Gibson to visit Europe

Perhaps before there are any suggestions as to how these are to be curbed - what is needed first is some discussion on what TROUBLE on our forum is?

And what exactly is a TROUBLEMAKER?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 03:09 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Seamus Kennedy - PM
"Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:39 AM

Pseudolus, fuck off and get your own analogy!

I started the soap opera analogy a while back, and you're jumping in on it now!

It's MY analogy, ya prick!

Go and think up something original!

Respectfully yours.

Seamus "

Will Pseudolus phuck orf?
Will Max get an advertising contract from Proctor and Gamble?
Will Seamus share his analogy with the forum?
Find out the answer to these and other burning questions on.....

As the Bile Churns.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 04:40 AM

I may disagree with what you say

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 04:59 AM

I have every right, as a moderator of this forum, to judge the worth of the posts. That is exactly what moderators do, in addition to the housekeeping. We apply what we know of the guidelines to the posts of those who exercise the privilege (note: I did not say "right") of posting here. My right is generated by the obligation I have as a moderator to perpetuate this site for the majority who post here. They expect we will accept the task of not allowing the forum to crumble from the attacks of trolls. It is what we do.

So go ahead and see if you can slip another false premise by. But in the meantime, any attacks, or redundant threads will be closed or deleted.

Mick

Is it not possible to view any right as a privilge or any privilge as a right? Would it be better not to make a distinction?

Do we not all have certain unalienable rights?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 05:15 AM

Non posting of judgements week (year)

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Alba
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:21 AM

"Now I seem to be stalked by a double Scotch"

No Roger, you never mix single malts:)
I am a Laphroaig while the other Malt is a Glenlivet.
A total waste of Whisky to fling those two fine drams together in a Glass as each are unique in their own way.
J:)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:23 AM

Will Shambles Strike a Nerve with his constant preaching?

Or will his long lost eye patch wearing twin brother come back form the war with a vendetta and an eye for his wife?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:25 AM

I guess we will have to keep an eye out for this event. (so to speak)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:31 AM

an eye for an eye and a truth for a truth..

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:35 AM

The chord has been struck and the cauldron is bubbling.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:37 AM

Rodney Shambles, tennis pro, gambler, raconteur. What questions will he ask of the MudCat? Will he support his brother or oppose him? Find out tomorrow on "As the Bile Churns".

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:12 PM

Do you need to be censored?

why all the closed threads?

What is a redundant thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:28 PM

All the repetitiive posts you have been making for years is the best definition of redundant posts I can think of.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:31 PM

Ye gads he was hiding behind his kilt all the time. Waiting to pounce.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 03:16 AM

I'm open to any and all suggestions, but it seems to me that it's time for members-only posting to BS, with membership paswords sent only to those with valid e-mail addresses, and for full review of Guest posts to the music section before they are released to public view. I see no value in the continued combat we've had, or in our continuing to protect the anonymity of those who want to cause trouble anonymously.

If you have a better idea, express it. Try to say something new, something true, and something constructive.
Joe Offer

Joe -
Those who quite obviously do not like the fact that the site's owner has always welcomed contributions from the public, are welcome post elsewhere or start a forum of their own with whatever restrictions they wish to impose.

When are you going take this constructive course of action and finally leave the rest of us in peace....?

If you need to be censored on your new site - I will only be too pleased to take up that role...All you have to do is ask.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Pied Piper
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 04:48 AM

So your speeking for Max now Shambles?

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 05:06 AM

My views are simply based on Max's own public statements.

If it was not his intention to open our forum for the the public's contributions - I think we can all safely accept that he would not have done so.

And if he wished to now exclude the public or impose further restrictions to posting - on the lines that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has formally proposed - I am sure he would have given some indication of that intention.............

I am sure that Max does need me or anyone else to speak for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 12:20 PM

Was this NEW bit part of the formal proposal made to Max?

- and for full review of Guest posts to the music section before they are released to public view

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: C. Ham
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 12:44 PM

I am sure that Max does need me or anyone else to speak for him.

Why can't he speak for himself?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 02:31 PM

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=90535&messages=302#1717294

Nice to have you on board - however I fear our concept of what is appropriate may differ. You still seem to think that posting to personally attack those fellow posters you may not agree with and heaping elaborate praise on those few you do agree with - to be an approprate example for a moderator to set.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: autolycus
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 06:28 PM

I'm a good boy so I don't need to be censored.

So just be sensible, don't ask silly questions - on second thoughts , that'd be ok, don't insult,be amusing, don't grind everyone down, basically don't say basically and be nice.

Easy.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: kendall
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 08:43 PM

I hope he doesn't do it, but I wouldn't blame Max if he pulls the plug. This was a great site until the brats moved in.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 03:56 AM

I agree with you Kendall, the laissez faire attitude of this site is becoming it's downfall.
Giok.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 04:35 AM

This is our forum and it it comprised (almost) entirely of what we choose to post.

If there is anything wrong with it now - it is the fault of what we choose to post or respond to on it.

It up to us all to correct it by posting differently - or to go away and stop moaning about - trying to excude and blaming everyone but ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 04:55 AM

Do you have your own private pulpit to rant from Roger, or do you rent one on a part time basis from Obsessives R Us?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: autolycus
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:50 AM

'Giok' - thread drift, methinks.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 06:24 AM

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 07:04 AM

Have you stopped beating your wife?
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 07:09 AM

How do you differentiate the "brats" from the non-brats?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 07:16 AM

Brats nave a coarser texture and different spices than say, Italian sausage or the common frankfurter.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: kendall
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 08:01 AM

The brats, in my opinion, are the ones who insist that they should have some right to post whatever they want, regardless who they may insult with their childish behavior.

"He looked at me"...."well you looked at me first"! Grow up!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:39 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:48 AM

Don't you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 09:51 AM

Thanks Spaw, that helps.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:23 AM

go away and stop moaning about - trying to excude and blaming everyone but ourselves. Live by your own words, Roger.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:32 AM

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:18 PM

I have no problem with that Roger, it's just that somehow you keep leaking onto other threads, unfortunately!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:01 AM

Do you not already have all the tools you need to deal with things you judge to be boring or in any other way not to your taste?

Can you not decide for yourself what to read or respond to?

Do you really need some other poster to make this decision for you?

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:14 AM

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:16 AM

So Shambolina.......

Do you not see that all of your efforts on all of your non-issues are going nowhere except to increased bandwidth?

Can you not decide for yourself that all your pissing and moaning is simply pissing and moaning?

Do you need me to keep reminding you that the FAQ says:"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."....and Max has obviously approved that statement?

Do you need a frontal lobotomy or have you already had one perhaps?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:53 AM

This thread is to be kept open, so Roger can say whatever it is that he needs to say.
-Joe Offer-

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:07 AM

Say whatever you like Sham.......No one is closing this thread but always remember.............

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:09 AM

The concept of a right to impose all of those things being kept in reserve is one that few of us would argue with.

However we may have some justification to argue when such powers are used as a matter of routine and selectively against certain targets but not against others.

When those trusted to keep the peace indulge themselves in abusive personal attacks and encourage others to follow this example.

And when most of this imposed censorship is undertaken to shape our forum to the tastes of a few and all under the excuse of protecting us from abusive personal attacks.

Methods which now the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has publicly admitted have failed to impose the required peace and who now proposes to turn our BS forum into a private members club and to screen all Guest posts to the music section - but does not wish the posters there to be informed.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:12 AM

Gee....Identical to the other thread!!! How Shamblecentric of you!!!

The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: autolycus
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:29 PM

Y'know, just at the moment, I'm not sure I wouldn't like some flack.

'Cos sometimes I post something decent and get ignored. My impresssion is the Shambles doesn't get censored that much in that way. Perhaps I'm just not asking enough questions. Is that the way to get not ignored?

Maybe, Shambles, I've got the hang of how to post so that they don't get pulled.

Or maybe there are some (no names, no packdrill), who have an unconscious need to be vilified, and just magnetise attacks without conscious awareness.

If so,












































good luck.

   ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 06:25 PM

Christ!

I've stayed away from Roger's Bleat 'n Greet threads for over a week, and when I look in, he's still repeating last Tuesday.

It's "Groundhog Day" on the Mudcat!

New entry for the Guinness Book of Records....World's longest tunnel: The Shambles' field of vision.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:03 PM

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 05:28 AM

Very few posters feel they do need to be censored. Many still do seem to think that others need to be censored.

But whatever – the question is never simply to have censorship or not. The introduction of any form of censorship is never the end of the story – it is just the beginning.

For there are many aspects to consider. Such as, the best way to do it, what is to be censored, by whom and for what object are. These are the sort of questions that never seem to be even addressed by those who would seem to see no need for them to be censored but still see every need for everyone else to subject to it.

Because these questions have never been addressed, we have the current well-meaning 'system'. Which has no clear object or rules to protect anyone from abuse and is based only on an individual's judgement – in practice this means one individual's personal judgement.

Apart from the question of the objectivity of judges who also wish to post as a fellow poster and the confusion of knowing what opinion or suggestion is expressed as an editing position and what is expressed as a fellow poster – the fact remains that one poster's judgement is as good or as bad as every other.

So when these judgements are imposed and the attempts made to publicly justify the judgement passed – it encourages an atmosphere where everyone considers they also have the right to also pass their judgement on the worth of their fellow posters. To speculate publicly on their assumed motives and to call them names and be as abusive to them as the example being set by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Staff – his known edit-button holders, his anonymous edit-button holders and their few loyal and vocal supporters.   

If peace is the object - my hope is that it will finally be accepted as a starting point - that no poster has (or should have) any control over what another chooses to post.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 06:41 AM

I had the Vet put my dog down last week, it was horrible and very sad, but necessary!
There comes a time when you just can't put off the necessary decisions!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 08:16 AM

If that is true - you have my best wishes.

Folk mean well when they say things like - they were like part of the family. But they are family and the grieving process is the same but made a little more difficult by the fact that you perhaps don't feel you can show it - as folk may think - it was only a dog etc.

Our Chudley has just turned 13 (or 91) and is very wobbly on his legs now so we may have to make the same decision soon. Not looking forward to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 10:12 AM

my hope is that it will finally be accepted as a starting point - that no poster has (or should have) any control over what another chooses to post. (Shambles)

If that is true then why did you start a couple of threads today in an attempt to control a discussion?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 11:00 AM

Wolfgang makes the point!

"....no poster has (or should have) any control over what another chooses to post."

If, Roger, you mean what you say, then 'no control' would mean NO control....which would mean that you are breaking your own version of what the rule should be by asking people to stop posting to 'your' threads or to stop 'thread drift'.

You seem to be asking for universal VOLUNTARY adherence to a concept of NO censorship, NO 'personal judgements' by anyone OF anyone, NO irrelevant posting on a thread, and NO moderators, open OR secret to oversee the voluntary adherence to this Utopian concept.

Read that last paragraph again...can you comprehend how absolutely impossible it would be to implement such a system in ANY practical way? There is an old expression..."doing that is like trying to herd cats"...and what you seem to be asking for is very similar. Hundreds of individuals, all with different ideas of 'relevance', 'judgement', 'censorship' and 'imposing', with minds that see things differently during a thread, and whose thoughts patterns DO drift in ways that yours may not.

   That is why some folks keep re-posting that message "The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum".....it is the ONLY way to have ONE rule that covers the situation...even if it doesn't make everyone happy all the time!

It's too bad that some of the applications of the rule jars YOUR notion of how things ought to run...but there it is....it's Max's place, with HIS staff interpreting the rules in the best practical way they can manage. It seems to be ok with a LARGE majority.....

I will refrain from a lengthy metaphor here on "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 12:05 PM

If, Roger, you mean what you say, then 'no control' would mean NO control....which would mean that you are breaking your own version of what the rule should be by asking people to stop posting to 'your' threads or to stop 'thread drift'.

In the land of the hypocrite and under the double standard - one can only try to do one's best. Given the provocation and insults - I think I do pretty well not to respond in kind. I make no claim to perfection.........I just want to be able to hold a discussion - where it OK and safe for all posters to express differing views and to see their words remain as posted.

Accepting that you have no control over what a fellow posters chooses to post - is the starting point. It does not mean you shouldn't make a polite (and preferably private) request for them to change their posting choices. But if they choose not to - it simply means that you always then accept that as a fellow invited guest - they have as much right to post what they choose as you do. And if you don't like this - you leave the party.

As a fellow invited guest - you have no right to subject others to personal judgements, encouraging others to publicly judge their worth, call them names, have public conversations about them and generally bully them in the hope that they change what they post or they leave. Do you think you and certain others do have this right?

You seem to be asking for universal VOLUNTARY adherence to a concept of NO censorship, NO 'personal judgements' by anyone OF anyone, NO irrelevant posting on a thread, and NO moderators, open OR secret to oversee the voluntary adherence to this Utopian concept.

Nothing Utopian about such a concept - it is what we call society and this showing of mutual respect face-to face generally works. This example worked pretty well on our forum - until a different example was set and followed.

If you feel you do not need to be censored - why insist that others must?

If you make no personal judgements - you are unlikely to be judged in return.

It is not me who is asking that there be no irrelevant posting on a thread - it would appear to be Mick's rules. I can ignore them and not respond in kind to them. Can't you do this?

If there is to be censorship - then it needs to be objective, have a clear object, a few clear rules that are seen to be consistently and fairly applied to all posters and not be undertaken by those who also wish to be part of the game and in order to shape our forum to their personal requirements.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 12:21 PM

If that is true then why did you start a couple of threads today in an attempt to control a discussion?

Wolfgang

I am now told by the chief of the Mudcat Editing Team and those who support him that - any subject MUST have a clear title to reflect the subject and that changes to the thread title will be imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission.

I think it may even be you who insists that any requests for information or subjects for discussion MUST be clearly titled to enable the requested information to be given. So following your logic, posts requesting information or inviting discussion on baseball players, films and grits have little chance of a constructive response when they are hidden in a thread titled Music posts by Guests to be reviewed (2).

So I provided thread titles for these subjects to enable all constructive conversation to continue. I even provided one where my own comments could be provided for public judgement and riducule - as one poster seemed to think there was a need for this. I note that you have found and contributed to this one.......

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 12:46 PM

How much have you contributed towards the upkeep of this site Roger?
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 09:06 AM

My view with sessions is pretty much the same as I view our forum. It is a public place everyone has the same rights to make music as anyone else. The only thing you can do - if you do not like this fact - is to leave and start a session of your own.

I have led a regular session for over 6 years and this reality is made very clear to all partipants. It works very well. Yes there are individuals who others find too loud or otherwise a pest. It is not easy to keep everyone happy and some drive others away. But any comments about these individuals who are judged to be pests are not encouraged.

If any particpant feels that bullying another is acceptable - they discover that it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 10:20 AM

I read and read that last post and got hung up on this:

" It is not easy to keep everyone happy and some drive others away. But any comments about these individuals who are judged to be pests are not encouraged."

IF some upset and drive others away, what IS done about the pests? Do I understand that in a session that you 'guide', the principle is that the 'feelings' of the pests are considered more important than the feelings of those being pestered?

"comments ....are not encouraged." If I read correctly between the lines here, you are applying the same concept RT as you do VT...any negative comment on the behavior of others is a greater transgression than the behavior itself. If someone doesn't like a real pest at a session, his option is to keep quiet...or leave.

I suppose consistency is one kind of virtue, but I think you have a bit of misplaced sense of values if you indeed feel that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 10:38 AM

The bit that strikes me as cogent in the context of Rogers vendetta against Joe and all clones is his statement.
"I have led a regular session for over 6 years and this reality is made very clear to all partipants."
It is classic control freakery personified that statement, and gives me a clue as to Rogers personality.
That and the story he told of telling another member of staff to 'Go forth and multiply' which tells me he's arrogant, and can be rude if he wants to be, but for the purposes of this campaign to change the Mudcat to his own image, he chooses to suppress this urge. Perhaps he's canvassing for support, and doesn't want to alienate everybody else by being foul mouthed as well!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How much have you contributed towards the upkeep of the Mudcat Roger?

Giok.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 10:44 AM

Obsessives rarely recognise the trait in themselves do they giok?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 10:54 AM

You mean like the fear of posting under your own name, aka cowardice sweetie?
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 10:55 AM

Well, IF the problem is "control freakery", it is no doubt easier if one is the 'leader' of record...and if the session is the only one handy; (a little music is better than NO music for many folks), but it is just a nuisance in a virtual forum where someone else makes the rules and you become the pest by trying to 'herd' the rest.

This statement got me "Nothing Utopian about such a concept - it is what we call society and this showing of mutual respect face-to face generally works.."

No, that is NOT how society usually works....people do NOT agree on how to behave in groups. What actually happens is that there are ways of coping and, in some cases, rules for dealing with it. And, yeah, that 'can' include "imposing judgement" when required.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:51 PM

If someone doesn't like a real pest at a session, his option is to keep quiet...or leave.

By Jove - after all these years!

Yes...Only by virtue of first recognising the FACT that like our forum is a public place where no one has any more rights than anyone else - so is the pub.

We are all equally customers of the pub in OUR session as we are all equally invited guests of Max here on OUR forum.

Is it the concept of everyone in our session receiving equal treatment and all shapes and sizes being tolerated, that you have such a problem with?

Or is it the concept that any bullying and sniping at any session members is thought unacceptable and not encouraged?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:18 PM

Affected by the Licensing Act 2003 has been closed.

I have asked for it to be re-opened and explained the reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:50 PM

Joe, i think that the criticism is a red-herring.

Mudcat is wide open and free-ranging with all kinds of ideas. It's real democracy.

I think that personal attacks that are abusive and do not serve the public interest could be deleted. Someone has to make that decision and from what I've read, the right decision has been made because Mudcat is one of the most interesting and informative reads on the net. It's also one of the most tolerant.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 04:50 PM

Yes but do you need to be censored Frank?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 05:20 PM

YOU need to be banned, Roger.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 05:22 PM

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 10:54 PM

I wish the moderators would treat all posts objectively.

I wish they would treat all members with the same respect they give Martin.

Today I asked that Martin's European threads be combined because they were on the same topic (I thought that was the policy) and as a result Joe closed one of the threads with a comment that he was doing it because too many people were bashing Martin.

Seemed a bit odd since it was Martin that started the thread.

It was also odd because he didn't say it was because the threads were all related.

Instead he decided to defend poor Martin from the other Mudcatters.

Wish he were as vigilant when Martin spews his vile, personal attacks on others.

---

It was clearly a personal attack, so I closed it - just like I've closed or deleted countless other personal attack threads and messages from and about Martin Gibson. Two of the three "Europe" threads were closed, and crosslinked to the third. The threads were too big to combine, since I have to move each message individually. This was done before I saw your request.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 05:00 AM

Martin Gibson to visit Europe   Has been closed.

Seemingly because it has been judged to be a personal attack thread -that had gone on long enough?

What is the permitted length of time for such threads?

Why is it the thread itself that is subject to some form of imposed action and not the offending posts and posters?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 05:02 AM

This was the editing comment.

OK, so the discussion of Martin Gibson has gone on long enough. If you wish to discuss his trip to Europe with him in a more positive way, do it in his most recent thread (click). This thread has become an extended personal attack, so it's closed.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 05:09 AM

So the lesson is - if any poster wishes any thread to be closed they are safe to post personal attacks to it or to intentionally flood it with different subjects and encourage others to follow suit.

And to be able to all this in perfect safety.

Although certain of our favoured posters have always done this and been perfectly safe no matter how questionable their conduct and the example set by this bullying conduct may be.

---

I'm aware of that possibility, and it concerns me. I've done what I can to resist that sort of attempt at coercion.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 05:46 AM

Affected by the Licensing Act 2003 has now been re-opened.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 11:15 AM

The judgement of the Editors in these matters is final and will be exercised without apology, explanation or compensation.

I did read that remark on another site. Looks like a good policy to me.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 11:57 AM

Any policy at all might be preferable.

But is it really very fair (to use the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's word) to introduce any policy, principles or terms other than those that Max wished and the original contributors to our forum were first attracted to and continue to be happy with?

This what was made it a special place - do we want it to be turned into the same as every other ordinary forum? An ordered but ordinary forum where this or that not permitted and you are only allowed to do this in this way?

I find it ironic and sad to now be accused by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing of contributing anti-Mudcat posts.

How are such posts now defined? That any view posted that does not agree with the constant changes and restrictions that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team still wishes to impose upon our forum - will be viewed as an anti-Mudcat post?

I continue to be one of the biggest supporters of Max's concept of our forum and I accept the reality that I will not see things posted that are to my taste. To be accused of being anti-anything because I may not agree with my fellow poster and now Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team latest restritions to impose on our forum - is not acceptable to me. I can probably put up with the example he sets of publicly being calling me a 'buffoon' and worse by him - but to accuse me of anti-Mudcat posts is too much.

If the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wishes to be universially loved and admired and to see only what is to his taste on this forum -perhaps he should realise is not going to get his form of required peace here. Perhaps it is time that he formed his own forum - rather than continue to wish to change the best aspects of our forum.

Then peace may have a chance on our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 12:12 PM

Perhaps the 'no rules' thing worked fine when Mudcat was a small site, but then like Topsy it growed, and it became necessary to try for some semblence of order, it's called evolution Roger, you should try it on your arguments.
Never mind, if many more members old, new, or would be, are driven away by your constant bickering perhaps the old rules will fit the newly reduced Mudcat?
Or maybe this pond is just too big for a small fish like you?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Pseudolus
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 03:09 PM

Geez, ya go away for a few days and someone calls ya an analogy stealing prick! sheesh! I must say at first I was tempted to be pissed off. But then I realized, it was Seamus! Now, really, for those of you that know him, have any of you ever TRIED to be mad at Seamus? I can't... Cause I know he was kidding....except maybe for that analogy stealing prick part.

Frank

P.S. I steal his jokes too, but don't tell him.......

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 06 - 03:19 PM

For what it is worth - I thought the jelly fish analogy was better.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 12:54 AM

Frank, on the bright side, I didn't call you a prick-stealing analogy.

But fair is fair, I was in first with the soap-opera thingie.

And Roger, the jelly-fish analogy was better than the soap-opera one?

I'm shattered! You know how to hurt a guy.

I'm probably not going to contribute to this thread for the next 3 or 4 weeks. So there!

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 02:00 AM

I'm probably not going to contribute to this thread for the next 3 or 4 weeks. So there!

Sorry to hear that but my little Scotch stalker(s) will no doubt compensate......

On your return to the show will you been seen coming out of shower as if nothing had happened?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 07:32 AM

Who are the Mudcat icons?

Editing comment from the above thread.

Right, Ted, which is why the posts were deleted. The posts were attempts to hijack the thread, or well meaning folks who responded to the attempts. Play nice.
Mudelf

"Play nice" – commands the anonymous voice of Big Brother……….

There appear to be threads that our anonymous guardians are quite prepared watch being intentionally 'hi-jacked' (or even join in with the hi-jacking) - and some they are not....

I am not too sure that anyone could tell us which thread is which?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 08:28 AM

That may be because almost every thread appears to have an html hyperlink in it put there by you, and referring the reader back to Roger's World.
Unfortunately I will not be able to hold you to account either for a week or thereabouts, as I am going into hospital on Thursday for a hip op.
So you are going to lose your "little Scotch stalker" too, I'm sure you will miss me as much as I would miss you Roger.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: jeffp
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 08:35 AM

Good luck to you Giok. Hope everything goes even better than planned.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 11:18 AM

Censorship always defeats it own purpose, for it creates in the end the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.

Henry Steele Commager

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 11:19 AM

Yawn!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 11:34 AM

The best of good fortune to you, Giok. Stay in touch.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 11:58 AM

Roger,
The 'Scotch stalker" is out of action.
Your Irish respondent ( my good self) is going AWOL.
You'll have to get by with Yanks, Brits, Aussies and Canucks.
Oh crap! I just broke my promise to stay off this thread for 3 or 4 weeks.
Bugger!

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 12:09 PM

Don't worry Seamus - I am sure there will always be someone willing to step into the gap.....

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 05:33 PM

Question re moderators

In the above thread I was informed in a post from kat that Roger, out of your 10,653 posts I have only deleted ONE, ever.

As I have never posted anything that needed to be censored and was not aware of this action – I asked for details of this indiscretion so I did not repeat it. But I did not receive this information

Later an editing comment was inserted into my post – as follows.

And Kat reported the deletion to me, and I reviewed it and undeleted the message because I disagreed, and there was no big deal about it - so I think that means our system works. If you disagree with the undeletion, Shambles, let me know.
-Joe Offer-

It is difficult for me to know if I disagree or not – as I still have no idea what the nature of the offending post might have been. As for this being evidence that the system works - I think this is Mudlogic.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 06:21 PM

Why do you not only have to rehash the same argument for 7 years, but you also have to post it in two separate threads at the same time Roger, talk about obsessed!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 10:44 AM

You know waht? If it was not that same poster who refreshes this thread after every post of mine - this thread may just fall off the bottom.

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 10:58 AM

Ah but, I can bet my bottom dollar as they say, that if it is left unrefreshed by us, it will be revived by you Roger, or at least referred to in a hyperlink in another thread, whether or not it is relevant!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 11:01 AM

It seems that will never be put to the test.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 11:01 AM

Us?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 11:15 AM

"Giok", I am thinkink your hip surgery could be a welcome relief from this thread. Hope everything goes well.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 12:53 PM

Shambles,
I do not. Nor do you. That's what I like about Mudcat. If however either one of us becomes abusive, mean or grossly insulting, we are wasting everyone's time and in that case Joe has the right and duty to call it. It's the issue of yelling "fire" in the movie theater. There is a point when the "freedom of speech" doesn't apply. Someone has to make this determination and I think Joe does a good job here.


I think legitimate criticisms are in order and disagreements should be accepted wholeheartedly. Calling people dirty names doesn't qualify as legitimate as a rule. And it doesn't contribute a damned thing.

Pornographic references to people as fecal matter or using descriptions that are abusive and directly insulting serves no one.
In this case, someone such as Joe has the right to intervene.

I believe though that punches should not be pulled when it comes to criticism and if done in a creative, descriptive manner that doesn't rely on personal attacks to anyone that posts here, that's legitimate.

I don't want to be called an "ass-hole" or any other fecal name and I don't believe it serves anyone of us if this is done to us.

Regarding certain people who I will not name, those that use this type of discourse, I will continue to discount anything they have to say.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:01 PM

Us Roger, we who post on this, Max's site!
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:15 PM

In keeping with the current trend in going to Wikipedia.......

Asshole or arsehole (outside of North America) is a slang term referring to the anus. The word is mainly used as a profanity towards someone the speaker does not like or to express deep contempt for someone whose behavior is hurtful, self-centered or particularly abrasive. Usually, the person to whom this term is directed is a male. It may also sometimes be used to describe people who are viewed as "stupid" or "useless."

Now on the one hand I often use the term with people I do like in a joking manner, however if we look at "hurtful, self-centered or particularly abrasive"...................uh, Roger............Hurtful? Yes as many believe it is you who is doing the real harm to the forum. Self-Centered? Abrasive? ROTFLMAO.....Neither of these need any explanation in relationship to your actions.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:38 PM

Yes as many believe it is you who is doing the real harm to the forum.

Or could it be as in my case yesterday two posts supporting shambles viewpoints were deleted, along with another by someone else also supporting him on the same thread?

Were these posts abusive/inflamatory/personal attacks? No, they pointed out that someone who calls for a member(shambles) to be banned and has previously deleted one of his posts, which joe later undeleted, isn't possibly the best person to be telling us how to post and what to post.

Kat showed bias and lack of objectivity and let her over eager fingers moderate without engaging her own rules of conduct that she is at such pains to tell us is the way forward.

So, if you don't see many posts supporting shambles it isn't because of lack of it, it is because they are being deleted and also some of us have busy lives and can't spend all day stalking him. Unlike his McDetractor.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 01:47 PM

Stringsinger:

You say (in response to Shamble's question "Do you need to be censored?") Shambles,I do not. Nor do you

I beg to differ with you. Over the years I have seen numerous posts of Shambles, that were it my choice would have been deleted. I've told him this before - just because he avoids certain anglo-saxon phrases does not make his posts any less hurtful, derogatory or judgemental. He is guilty of every single "crime" and offense that he has accussed others of on this forum - with the possible exception of scatological vernacular - and I am willing to bet there is some of that in amongst his posts.   He also is known (and provably so) to misquote, qoute out of context, and to edit qoutes to further his own point of view.

He has claimed repeatedly to have no desire to influence the way this site is run by Max - yet constantly posts "suggestions" which criticize the current administration and the way the site is run.

All this in addition to the way he posts suppossitions that are false, yet defends them as if they were true - and when this is pointed out to him claims that he is being bullied.

Perhaps you are correct that he does not need to be censored. however - he is demopnstrably in dire need of polite social skills.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:06 PM

Pornographic references to people as fecal matter or using descriptions that are abusive and directly insulting serves no one.
In this case, someone such as Joe has the right to intervene.

With the greatest of respect Frank.

Has is escaped your attention that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has often set the example of indulging in such posts as you describe toward easy targets and incited other to follow this example? Has deleted such posts from certain posters and completely ignored many from certain favoured ones?

I can dig some examples of them out again - if I really must. The most recent name he has publicly called me is a buffoon - but there are worse.

Would you consider that this would still entitle the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to intervene when others followed this example? And if he did could this be seen to have any credibility?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:12 PM

I object to the use of the worfd "often"; I also believe that any "incitement" is purely in Roger's mind. I also object to the term "favoured" in the context used.

roger - naming someone to be what they have demonstrated themselves to be is not an insult - it is a statement of fact. the shoe fits, through your own choice and action, and thus you should wear it. If you do not wish to be called a buffoon, do not exhibit the behavior of one.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:21 PM

"......naming someone to be what they have demonstrated themselves to be is not an insult......"

Good point Mario.

We always need to remember too that it is better to be pissed off than pissed on and better to be pissed on than pissed through.........'cause that'd make you a prick.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: autolycus
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:46 PM

I don't need to be censored. I am not being asked about others.

Would others care to duplicate the above line. It'd be great to have a complete set.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:52 PM

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-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM

Shambles quotes Joe saying: I wonder why Shambles is so afraid to give dates and context when he uses my words. That doesn't seem quite fair, either.

Shambles sez: You could always ask him? But......

Shambles quotes Shambles saying: If the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wishes to deny making these quotes - I can certainly supply the threads and dates.

Well, Roger, I don't want to be drawn into the discussion, and I try to avoid "pissing contests" as much as I can. You'll note that most of the time I don't comment unless there's something new to discuss. Lacking that, you attempt to insert me into the discussion, against my wishes, by posting out-of-context comments from me that are sometimes several years old. No, I shouldn't be obligated to look them up and give reference information for them - they're from your stalking library, and I would assume that you should have that information if you post the quotes. If you believe in fairness at all, the least you could do is furnish dates and context for the quotes you post. I have made no attempt whatsoever to deny the quotes you post - I have simply requested that you furnish dates and context information.
Maybe you have noted that we are very careful to leave anti-Mudcat posts alone. We let people say just about anything they like about Mudcat and its administrators, because we truly do believe in free expression.
But YOU abuse that privilege by posting half-truths and innuendo, and by posting the same thing over and over again. I like to answer legitimate questions about Mudcat policy and editorial actions, but you have made a mockery of that by raising the same issues over and over again. Your constant barrage of anti-Mudcat posts has effectively squelched legitimate discussion of Mudcat policy - because YOU twist every such discussion toward yourself. You fight in the name of freedom - but by conducting your fight without any respect for others, you effectively destroy the freedom of discussion of Mudcat policy.
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: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:00 PM

roger - naming someone to be what they have demonstrated themselves to be is not an insult - it is a statement of fact.

I suspect if I called you what you have demonstrated yourself to be - you may consider it an insult. I am sure certain other posters would and call for me to be banned or burnt at the stake.

But as you know - posted insults are not really my concern. However, they are supposed to be the concern of those who are supposed to be protecting us from them. So the harm is done when any of our moderators set the example of posting abuse at fellow posters - not whether the abuse may be accurate or judged by you to be deserved.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:03 PM

your point? those are not deletions or censoring. they are joe's stated opinions regarding your actions, signed with his name - they are not anonymous attacks. In fact, they are not "attacks" at all when, when taken in context.

And one of those qoutes was made in response to the posting of an anonymous guest; if I do recall; so it wasn't made to *YOU* at all - EVEN IF YOU ACTUALLY MADE THE POST.

and again, for those who saw the quote in context, not an "attack", but the end result of a process and dialogue.

nor is Joe's refusal to do YOUR work and to supply time and dates for your out of context unreasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:26 PM

For several days Mr. Shambles has been keeping his own four threads consistently in the top ten BS spots. This gives me pause and cause to consider whether his intent differs from his positions as espoused. (It reminds me, vaguely, of Reagan or Bush II running up national debt with the alleged ulterior motive of crippling government services. It also somehow reminds me of the Iranian government's new promise to proliferate nuclear technology.)

It mostly reminds me of a vexatious, self-represented litigant, the common profile for which is a very eloquent and persuasive person. With a vexatious, pro-se litigant, it is very easy to get absorbed in and pre-occupied with the substantive arguments presented. It is also entirely useless to inquire as to the litigants' goal, because no end is intended or desired.   

Forgive me, Roger, if I have mischaracterized your intent. It seems, however, that you have no endgame strategy.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:45 PM

Good god no, the last thing Roger wants is a resolution to this little local difficulty, it would destroy his raisom d'etre.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:51 PM

Which is?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: jeffp
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:53 PM

You tell us.

And tell us what your goal is also.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:57 PM

Many poster have done nothing but tell me and our forum what my motives are.

I will leave it to them - they are the experts....

If anyone actually read my posts - they may find out - if they are really interested?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,Martin gibson
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 04:59 PM

mmario, what if I told you all of your ranting about how easily offended you are makes you look like a wimpy idiot. You demonstrate the behavior of one by being so....................touchy.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: jeffp
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 05:00 PM

You are the only one who can tell us. Why won't you specify in simple language exactly what it is that you are after?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,Anomalous Member
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 10:09 PM

Hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 06:23 AM

It could be simply to demonstrate that when you post only to judge a thread or a fellow poster in a thread - you only refresh it?

And that if you should not approve - if you simply ignore the offending post or thread - in time it will fall off the bottom of the world?

That the only censor you ever need are the buttons in front of you?

It could be that?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: jeffp
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 08:03 AM

Why are you ignoring my questions?

Why won't you specify in simple language exactly what it is that you are after?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 08:24 AM

Perhaps to irritate, agitate and even make fools out of some?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 08:29 AM

I need the 399.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 08:36 AM

Martin - you are perfectly welcome to assume I am a wimpy idiot and to express your opinion; but people who know me will tell you I am *not* easily offended, and in fact am a very tolerant person.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 08:38 AM

he he

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 09:03 AM

roger - naming someone to be what they have demonstrated themselves to be is not an insult - it is a statement of fact. the shoe fits, through your own choice and action, and thus you should wear it. If you do not wish to be called a buffoon, do not exhibit the behavior of one.

I really respect Mario, and I agree inprinciple, I could not disagree more strongty in the specifics. No one "demonstrates" themselves to be a buffoon or an asshole, those insults are matters of opinion and not demonstrable fact. Having those opinions come from a moderator undermines all calls for peace and civility and makes a mockery of the suggestion that Emily Post's "Etiquite" be used as the a guide to the standard of behavior here.

A hypothetical example, aimed at no one. If someone is engaging in a specific behavior such as name calling and looking for fights, you might say that he is beligerent, but it would be crossing a line of etiquite to call him a "goon".

If name calling is wrong. It is just as wrong for the cheif moderator as it is for the lowliest "GUEST".

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 09:11 AM

The Shambles, 27 Apr 06 - 06:43 AM:

It could be simply to demonstrate that when you post only to judge a thread or a fellow poster in a thread - you only refresh it?

And that if you should not approve - if you simply ignore the offending post or thread - in time it will fall off the bottom of the world?

Well, no...unless he decides to stop being the first one to come onto the thread each day with some cogent comment, and to refresh it.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 09:21 AM

JTS- perhaps I should have said "If one exhibits the characteristics equated with a buffoon then to name that person a buffoon is merely description, not insult." - on the other hand, to call someone a buffoon when they have NOT exhibited those traits would then be an insult.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 10:47 AM

Its never polite to call someone a buffoon. It may be, may be OK for you one to point to specific behaviors and express an opinion that these behaviors are wrong, but it is never right to label someone you disagree with as a buffoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 11:26 AM

Geez.......I didn't know that Jack. Can't use "Buffoon" huh? Hmmmmm.........well, how about "Horse's Patoot" then?

Just a thought.........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 11:42 AM

your point? those are not deletions or censoring. they are joe's stated opinions regarding your actions, signed with his name - they are not anonymous attacks. In fact, they are not "attacks" at all when, when taken in context.

MMario I do not consider you to be a fool but your determination to defend, justfy and excuse online behaviour and the examples set more than once by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - that you would accept if this same individual had imposed editing action on exactly the same online behaviour - is making you look foolish.

By repeatedly displaying it, the stubborn attempt to justify this behaviour and showing no inclination to apolgise to our forum for it nor any commintment to change it - the current Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has also made it impossible for any of his team. For this stance will destroy any remaining credibility this 'system' may once had been able to claim.

Which is a shame as I have never doubted the honest good intentions of all the participants - just the inablity of this well-intended 'system' to deliver anything but more division on our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 11:45 AM

My apologies to those readers who find the use of a succint descriptive impolite; however I stand by my statement that, polite or not, it is not an insult to use a term that describes the actions of a person.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:03 PM

My apologies to those readers who find the use of a succint descriptive impolite; however I stand by my statement that, polite or not, it is not an insult to use a term that describes the actions of a person.

All this is beside the point of course as what is important is who is using the word. But perhaps you would care to supply your list of words to the chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - for their would appear to be a double standard?

Subject: RE: Why Is Martin Gibson Allowed Here?
From: GUEST,LDB - PM
Date: 15 Sep 04 - 05:25 PM

I think Martin Gibson serves one of the most important roles here on Mudcat. He is the only one who smashes Lepus the asshole Rex and his/hers/its stupid comments to bits. The only problem with that is that Martin Gibson is so much smarter than Lepus the asshole Rex that Lepus the asshole Rex doesn't even know that he has been smashed by Martin Gibson.

Keep up the great work, Martin Gibson. And remember, Lepus the asshole Rex is an asshole.

OK, so I suppose it's time to close this one, too. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know it doesn't have anything to do with everybody calling each other asshole.
That kind of stuff makes it really difficult to carry on an adult discussion.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:16 PM

?? roger - Joe specifically states that the reason for closure wasn't the term asshole, or that they were calling each other that. How does that qoute promote your point of view?

I have a serious question for you.

Do you understand that even if it were not stated in the FAQ, Max and his appointed proxies (which includes anyone with an edit button) have the right to delete, edit, change, modify, close, any thread, posting, page, file etc on Max's servers and site?

I am not asking if you agree with this, or if you think it is right, or proper. Do you understand that Max et al as a plain simple statement of truth have the RIGHT to do so?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:16 PM

Roger - my point from the beginning has been that Joe is not answerable to you, me,or any poster. He is answerable to Max. that's the way the system works, because Max owns the site and appointed Joe to do what Joe does.

Period. That is a fact. He does not have to explain or justify any of his actions to any poster. They are between him and Max.

You apparently do not like this.

I don't like the fact that if I jump off a 30 foot tower I will not float gently to the ground. But that isn't going to change the facts of what will happen if I do so jump.

While you may not have ever doubted the honest good intentions of any of the participants, from the beginning the language and terms you have used certainly make it appear that you do indeed doubt the intentions of those participants.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:28 PM

Spaw,

You are a funny, funny man, with an amazing memory. You appear to recall that my first encounter with "Mudcat moderation" was when a certain mudelf, who has since mellowed quite a bit, called me a few others "a horse's patoot". It was on that day that I learned the real "rules of engagement" here, I seldom go as far as that moderator did, but when I do, I find comfort in the fact that name calling, when needed, is allowed.

Getting back to this example.... at the risk of offending John Hardly, I need some clarity here.

Main Entry: buf·foon
Pronunciation: (")b&-'fün
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French bouffon, from Old Italian buffone
1 : a ludicrous figure : CLOWN
2 : a gross and usually ill-educated or stupid person
- buf·foon·ish /-'fü-nish/ adjective

So Shambles is literally a clown? I'm sorry that must be my mistake, but I can't see his make up.

He's certainly isn't gross, ill-educated or stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:40 PM

MMario

Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules
From: Max - PM
Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:44 PM

User Name Thread Name Subject Posted [PM] Max Max is taking action (76* d) Max is taking action 22 Jul 99

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the tone of the Mudcat lately. The Shambles leaving finally allowed me to come to some kind of conclusion about how to handle it from a Mudcat Administrator point of view. For one thing, I have marveled at the comradery and love and knowledge and friendship that the Mudcat has been. I have felt safe in meeting new people here and inviting them into my home. But something is changing.

To get to the point, I have decided to watch the threads with the help of some of the volunteers and communication with all Mudcat members to identify people who "cross the line". Obviously there is a lot of interpretation and gray area in determining this, but I am going to make it black and white. It's real simple. If I FEEL that you are not a positive factor in this community and/or said things to drive folks away or scare anybody, etc., your membership will be deactivated until you call me on the telephone to personally discuss the situation. I cannot let another fine person leave, and I cannot support a community where people are not comfortable sharing who they are and what the love, and I will not continue publishing the Mudcat if we cannot find a way to control it.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:45 PM

Roger - I asked a simple yes or no question. Your qoute has no relevance whatsoever to the question asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:51 PM

MMario, I knew he would quote exactly that sentence as a response and you must have known that as well after all these years.

Sometimes I think the worst Joe ever has done to Shambles is to let him post all these posts and to keep threads like this open. There is no insult even worse than those he is so pleased to repeat that can do even remotely as much damage to Shambles reputation as his own posts do. It is a sad story oscillating between comedy and tragedy.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:52 PM

Obviously there is a lot of interpretation and gray area in determining this, but I am going to make it black and white.

It's real simple. If I FEEL that you are not a positive factor in this community and/or said things to drive folks away or scare anybody, etc., your membership will be deactivated until you call me on the telephone to personally discuss the situation.

That public statement by Max would appear to me to apply to everyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 12:55 PM

again, Roger, the response is irrelevant to the question asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:31 PM

MMario -

You have gotten quite heated with me - you have not to my recollection ever felt you needed to call me names.

Perhaps you would be the one to set a better example as Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:36 PM

your recollection is faulty then Roger. And I signed my name and everything.   

Could you answer my question, please?

The topic you seem to want to discuss is directly and quintessentially effected by whether or not you understand the fact that Max and his proxies have the right to to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum.

Yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:37 PM

" Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none"
..but there are standards and decisions and "deciders"...(our esteemed (*grin*) president said the other day that HE is the 'decider'. Here, Joe, and above him, Max, are the deciders. That way we don't have to write out in monumental and tedious detail all possible 'rules'.

The 'rule' is common sense and courtesy, and you, Roger, are just as guilty of avoiding that rule as those you complain about...you just do it in a different direction and call it something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 01:56 PM

The topic you seem to want to discuss is directly and quintessentially effected by whether or not you understand the fact that Max and his proxies have the right to to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum.

MMario on a practical level those of us who eat meat accept that animals have to be slaughtered to enable this. The question is the manner in which we slaughter them.

That Max has the right to do the things you list is NOT in question.

Perhaps you would accept that there are other rights and responsibilities?

P.S. What insulting names have you called me that I have forgotten?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:09 PM

The 'rule' is common sense and courtesy, and you, Roger, are just as guilty of avoiding that rule as those you complain about...you just do it in a different direction and call it something else.

Piffle!

I make no claim for perfection - but I do not post only personal judgement of the worth of my fellow named posters - post abusive personal attacks - call posters abusive names - encourage and incite others to do so or respond in kind to the many abusive personal attacks that I am subject to and receive no protection from.

Or attempt to excuse the inexcusable double standards and hypocrisy displayed on our forum by some posters - using your unique brand of Mudlogic.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:09 PM

I'm sure you can recall them Roger, should you think about it.
In the spirit of this conversation I prefer not to repeat gratuitious insults.

I do accept that there are other rights and responsibilities.

For example;

Do you or I have the right to ask that our posts not be edited? Yes.

Do you or I have the right to REQUIRE that our posts not be edited? NO. (Because that would contravene Max's basic right to do so)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:11 PM

"MMario on a practical level those of us who eat meat accept that animals have to be slaughtered to enable this. The question is the manner in which we slaughter them.".......Shambles


ROTFLMAO........I bet your butcher loves you Roger!!!

"Mr.Cleaver, was that bull bolted or did he die of natural causes? Any chance you have some ground round that was run over by a Peterbilt?"

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:28 PM

Any chance of putting in one of your usual needless profanities, scatological references and name-calling?

Or has someone finally had a word with you about this?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:32 PM

Fuckin' A right Roger......Shitfire Man, your wish is my command!

Was that what you had in mind?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:44 PM

Damn, 'Spaw!!! You distracted him. Just when he finally stated that Max's right to to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum.

Next step.

Roger, do you understand the concept of proxy? that Max can delegate his rights as mentioned above to others?


[As a matter of fact, unless he does so delegate the rights no one is capable of those actions]

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:50 PM

I do not post only personal judgement of the worth of my fellow named posters ....

Or attempt to excuse the inexcusable double standards and hypocrisy displayed on our forum by some posters.

No, you do not judge your fellow named posters!?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 02:53 PM

But Mario my friend, don't you undeerstand that Roger is fighting for ME!!! He says he only goes by that one throw-off line Max wrote many years ago saying not to sweat the rules 'cause there ain't none. He is my Knight and Saviour.

Now as soon as Shambo is willing to concede to the "FAQ" and agree that mods are here and they ARE Max's chosen appointments, then I will happily stop posting "profane" words.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 03:10 PM

whoops! I have to amend my statement above:

[As a matter of fact, unless he does so delegate the rights no one is capable of those actions]

should read:

[As a matter of fact, unless he does so delegate the rights no authorized legal poster is capable of those actions]

since there is always the possibility of hackers.

'Spaw - If I were Shambles I'd capitulate immediately just to see how long you could actually manage it! Though I notice you didn't include the scatological or insulting.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Apr 06 - 03:42 PM

LOL.....Yeah, but ya' know I've been a member on a racing board that is affiliated with a network and they allow NO nasty words, not even a hell or a damn....software edits them but the mods edit out the "damm" and "he!!" and all the tries like feck or fock.

Also no one calls names or they get zapped.

No one questions the deletions or edits publicly or the thread gets zapped.

Arguing is pretty vehement but if you go for the person you're zapped....and that is left up to the judgement of a mod.

All the mods are regular members as well and use different screen names for mod duty.

There are 18 different forums and all the mods are conscripts and work only one forum each....and during specific hours

And I've been posting there for over three years and never zapped!

And for the past year I've been a mod.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 09:30 AM

MMario - The present 'system' was well-intentioned but it offers no protection to posters from inconsistent or personally motivated actions being imposed on certain targets. Just as importantly, it offers no protection for those imposing editing action, from any charges that imposed actions were inconsistent or personally motivated. Nor from their integrity from being compromised by the public actions of their fellow editors.

Even more importantly - it seems to encourage division and an attitude where posters now seem to be more concerned with ways of preventing others from posting their views – than encouraging all of us all to post and concentrate on our own. Which are the only posts any of us have any real control over.

One of the main problems is that some of those who would appear to be making, changing and enforcing the current 'rules' in order to shape our forum to their personal tastes – do not feel that they should be subject to the same 'rules' –or indeed to any 'rules'. I would like to propose the following changes to this 'system' which I think would help to solve many of these problems..

Could all proposed imposed censorship actions be referred to Max, limited to the offending post only, rather than the entire thread and every action subsequently agreed to, be clearly recorded in the thread in question?

Could the ability to close any thread for any reason, be limited to Max and any requests for closure be made directly to him only? And could all threads (except) these – remain open?

Could all other editing duties be limited to a few known posters who would always be acting as fellow posters unless it was clearly stated they were commenting in their editing duties?

Could editing duties be limited to:

only privately referring any proposed candidates for imposed censorship to Max.

only responding to any requested changes to a poster's own contributions and recording this in the thread.

only changing anything with the poster's knowledge and prior agreement and recording this in the thread

Could any poster undertaking these duties who is seen to exceed the above or sets any example like the posting of any abusive personal attacks or responding in kind to any they may receive, or be seen to post only personal judgements of the worth of their fellow posters – be relieved of their editing duties?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 10:21 AM

WHOA! you are going way to fast for me...

What I am trying to do, and to establish, is that we are both discussing this from the same basis. We are not agreed that max has the rights to edit etc.

Secondly, do you understand the concept of Proxy? (see my previous post)

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:15 AM

I donno about all of this talk about Max's "rights". The Mudcat forums would be nothing without the people who post, so he actually has no more "rights" than those who come here choose to give him. Making this place work means pleasing the membership. If you choose to try to bolster Max's artificial "rights" by arguing for them, that's your "right". But recognize that it is nothing but empty rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: jeffp
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:34 AM

You can't be seriously claiming that Max has no more right to control this site than you, for example, do. That's just absurd.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:35 AM

Unfortunately Jack you are 100% incorrect in that assumption. Max owns the server and the site. Because of that he does indeed have the full and legal right to edit, delete, modify, combine, close, etc any post or thread on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST,G
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:42 AM

If we can be realistic for a moment, you have to know that Max is giving all of us his permission to post here. Without it, where would you be?

It is his ball and if he wants to 'take it and go home', that is also his perogative.

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could think otherwise. How much are you paying to post here????????

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:49 AM

And will these legal "rights" get him a cup of coffee at Starbucks? Nope! He'll still need his $1.75. Legal "rights" only count in court. The fact is, Shambles has just as much "right" to do what he does as Max does to censor. The bottom line here is not what will stand up in court, its what you can "sell" to the membership. So talk of "rights" is nothing more than a weak sales job.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:50 AM

If people don't post here. Max has nothing but an idle server.

Stop buying the Bull Shit!! The PEOPLE have the power!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:55 AM

it is not clouding the issue. it is the very basic foundation of the issue. Because the entire discussion *does* eventually boil down to whether or not Max has the right to edit, delete, change, move, modify, etc.    And he does.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 11:57 AM

Mario,

I think the issue needs to be separated from the invective. Anyone is entitled to their point of view as long as they don't attack another personally. We're talking ideas, here, not personalities.

Criticism is fine. Whether it's rational or not is up to those who read it.

Anyone can claim they are bullied or mistreated. This is not hurtful to others. As to social protocol, a lack of it is unfortunate but not necessarilly hurtful.

I am in faovr of any criticism, dissent or invective heaped on an idea but not on a person. If someone wants to say that my ideas are "full of crap", that's OK by me as long as I am not personally attacked. Ideas can be defended by reason. Personal attacks can't.

Frank Hamilton










--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 26 Apr 06 - 03:06 PM

Pornographic references to people as fecal matter or using descriptions that are abusive and directly insulting serves no one.
In this case, someone such as Joe has the right to intervene.

With the greatest of respect Frank.

Has is escaped your attention that the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team has often set the example of indulging in such posts as you describe toward easy targets and incited other to follow this example? Has deleted such posts from certain posters and completely ignored many from certain favoured ones?

I can dig some examples of them out again - if I really must. The most recent name he has publicly called me is a buffoon - but there are worse.

Would you consider that this would still entitle the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to intervene when others followed this example? And if he did could this be seen to have any credibility?


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

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:01 PM

love to discuss that with you frank - but dealing with a completly different issue at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: jeffp
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:12 PM

OK, Jack. Why don't you and Shambles organize a boycott of the Mudcat in an effort to stop the moderators?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:22 PM

Good question Jeffp.

Why don't you just go and enjoy the forum rather than come to threads like this and mentally masturbate about imaginary rights?

Max has the "right" to ban all folk music on the forum. But the Mudcat wouldn't be the Mudcat if he did. This talk of "rights" is silly and fruitless.

For God's sake if you don't like what Shambles is saying, ignore him. But criticizing him while playing the same silly game gets old.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:22 PM

Hi Shambles,

I don't have the facts on the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. How has this been done? I haven't seen any example of it. Please enlighten me.

Yes, you must dig out some examples again to support your claim. Calling someone a "buffoon" is not nice if that is what was done, it's disrespectful and deserves an apology.

Is this a kind of feud that is unnecessary?

I need to know what was said and in what context. If personal attacks were made by anyone, the crediblity of the attacker is diminished regardless of who it was.

But you need to bring it up as evidence to support your claim. It would be required of you in a court of law. I haven't seen it yet but I am open to the criticism that you have.

Personally, although I don't read every post, I am impressed by the exchange of ideas and information on Mudcat. I don't see anything wrong with hurling invective at an idea but I don't believe it's the best way to substantiate or present a case.

Those who personally attack anyone deserve no credibility however,
if someone is behaving badly or criminally, it's imperative to call criticism on this behavior. For example, I believe that Bush is acting like a criminal but I don't hate him. I am not calling him a "dirty bastard" or anything like that. I believe his behavior is corrupt butI don't view this as a personal attack on him since I'm not calling him names personally. I'm open to the idea that away from politics Bush might possibly be a nice person. Of ocurse, I don't know this. I think, though, he would have made a much better baseball manager than a president and Condi would have served everyone better if she played the piano instead of botching her job in the State Department. But these are not personal attacks.

I thoroughly disagreed with Reagan on almost every point of his political philosophy and believe that he was responsible for the rise of homelessness in America. He represented everything diametrically that I stand for. I knew Patti, his daughter, and trusted her when she told me that away from politics, he was a pretty nice person.

Thus said, I think that Bush's ideas about governing are "full of crap" but consistency impels me to attack ideas, not people.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:22 PM

To suggest Max has no more right than anyone else is as foolish a notion as I have heard postulated. He has all rights. Add the fact that he pays for all this with very little help. I know this man, and what started out as a cool thing to do, has turned into duty for him. He keeps this going because he knows that it is an outlet for folks from all persuasions, places, and music styles to express and be a part of a community. What was a cool thing has become a personal obligation. I remember when he had to share his bedroom with his lady and all the computers. I remember when he worried daily at how he was going to be able to keep it going after Onstage ended. Did he need the headache with a new baby, new wife, and trying to make a living? Nope. A less decent person would have folded the tent and left.

All rights here are Max's. The rest of us are feeding at his trough. Gratefullness is what you should have, Shambles, not criticism. I do not care what you think is right. And it isn't "our" forum. It belongs to the young man who has sacrificed to keep it going. He chooses to give his proxy to some of us. We try to do the best we can to maintain the site and keep it true to its roots. We make mistakes, but we try to fix them. For the most part we succeed. Proof of that is that you are still allowed to post, FOR in most forums they would simply have gotten rid of you and a couple of others here.

And Jack, enough of this POWER TO THE PEOPLE stuff. You just sound foolish. There is no freakin' revolution here. It is a site maintained by a person for the discussion of music, and the issues that spawn it. A little perspective is useful here.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: jeffp
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:27 PM

I'm enjoying this very much! Why don't you stop trying to tell people what to do and utilize your right to stay away?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Joe Offer
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. He might refer to somebody who engages in such-and-such conduct as an "idiot"; but he rarely, if ever, would say that "so and so is an idiot." The "Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team" uses such oblique references in much the same way that another might use an oblique reference such as "Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team."

The "Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team" does admit that on one occasion, he referred to the multi-named poster of copy-paste posts as a "pain in the ass." The person had posted pages and pages of copy-paste information that was available in many other places - and posted only copy-paste information with nothing at all that he/she had written - and used a different sender's name in every post.

As for the "buffoon," it was a conclusion drawn within the context of a description of behavior of a person who prefers to discuss matters with out-of-context quotes instead of directly with the source of those quotes. He can't argue with a full, logical presentation of an idea, so he resorts to arguing with out-of-context excerpts and splitting discussions into dozens of threads. Sounds like buffoonery to me.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:56 PM

Jeffp,

I'm not telling anyone what to do. I am laughing at people for playing Shambles game. Actually its pretty clear that Shambles is attempting to be a buffoon, in the clown sense of the word. If that's what Joe meant, he was actually justified in doing so. I would thing that Shambles would take being called a clown as a compliment. After all the whole shtick is pretty funny.

For Goodness sakes guys, Arguing with Shambles about "rights" is like telling Jay Leno that Michael isn't funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:00 PM

Michael Jackson

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:08 PM

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-

Frank - let me know if you need more evidence - sadly there are more and worse names.
And more excuses and justification given for such examples. I would say outbursts - but you always have time to choose your words carefully online - so that excuse is not a valid one.

I fear it is as I say - SOME of those who would feel qualified to impose endless petty restrictions and judge the rest of us - do not appear think that any judgement or rules should apply to them and get very angry if such things are even suggested.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:12 PM

Subject: RE: BS: I.R.A. Decissioning
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 27 Sep 05 - 03:33 PM

I am so tired of these apologist bastards. >snip<

Those that equivocate on the issue are idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:29 PM

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 11 Aug 05 - 03:28 PM

I also find it an interesting challeng to respond to insults without resorting to insults. Although I guess I have to admit that I have sometimes given in to that temptation, I think I generally do a pretty good job of expressing myself rationally and with good humor..

......................................................................

Subject: RE: In the UK......? (thread title change complain
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 12 Aug 05 - 03:30 PM

You see, Roger, most of us are here to have a good time among friends. All of your adversarial crap is just that - adversarial crap. We volunteers do what we need to do to keep the peace and tidy things up. Nobody's out to offend your right to free speech - but if you insist on making an asshole of yourself, you're likely to be treated like an asshole. Basically, Mudcat is here for enjoyment - not for all this heavy stuff you try to lay on us. You want to play war games, and that's not what we're here for.

No, I really can't defend our editorial actions, and I have no reason to defend anything to an idiot who can make such a big deal about the addition of three little words, "in the UK," to a thread title. We just try to do what we think is right, to make things run a little more smoothly around here. That's basically what Max asked us to do when he gave us editing buttons. And we volunteers don't pretend to sit in judgment over anybody here, as you so often contend. We're just here to deal with the problems.

If that's not satisfactory to you, so be it. Tough shit, in other words. Nobody named you judge and jury. And despite your four-year campaign, you haven't been able to convince Max to crack down on us volunteers, have you? Doesn't that tell you something?
-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-

The last one was not addressed to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: jeffp
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:29 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor - PM
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 12:22 PM

Why don't you just go and enjoy the forum rather than come to threads like this and mentally masturbate about imaginary rights?

I guess I was mistaken when I interpreted this as you telling me what to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:34 PM

Those who personally attack anyone deserve no credibility however,
if someone is behaving badly or criminally, it's imperative to call criticism on this behavior.
Frank Hamilton

And if you are brave or foolish enough to do it on our forum - then duck and run for cover................

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:44 PM

"OK, Jack. Why don't you and Shambles organize a boycott of the Mudcat in an effort to stop the moderators? "

No Jeffp

I wasn't telling you what to do. I was just making fun of the BS I have quoted above.

pretty good huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:46 PM

I love the fact that you use the "IRA Decommissioning" quote. It demonstrates quite clearly that you will just cut and paste things out of context. Shows there is no intellectual base to your arguments.

To suggest that I think a group who thinks a certain way is idiotic is not a wrong or bad thing to do. For example: I think that folks that want to drill in ANWR are shortsighted, and because their actions will destroy something beautiful, they are idiotic. I think that folks that seek to justify the actions and follow the teachings of despotic killers, such as Hitler, are dangerous and idiotic.

Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting anything about folks here personally, just making the point.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 01:56 PM

Mick I posted your opening and closing line on that one, mainly as a bit of light relief.

In my judgement - it remains THE funniest start and finish to a forum post ever......

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 02:08 PM

See Suggestion for Rules of Engagement For the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team's response (in editing comment brown) to my suggestion for changes to the current censorship rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 02:14 PM

In my post of 12:22, it seems that I misunderstood the context in which Jack the Sailor's comments were made. I didn't realize that they were made "tongue in cheek". I hope that Jack will accept my apology for the misunderstanding.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 02:19 PM

I made the same mistake. sorry JtS!

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 02:20 PM

Thanks for the kindness Mick but no need to apologize. I was just peeing on Shambles' cornflakes like everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 03:55 PM

Nobody's out to offend your right to free speech - but if you insist on making an asshole of yourself, you're likely to be treated like an asshole.
-Joe Offer-
----------------------------------
OK, so I suppose it's time to close this one, too. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know it doesn't have anything to do with everybody calling each other asshole.
That kind of stuff makes it really difficult to carry on an adult discussion.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 04:44 PM

Be a Clown - Cole Porter

Act the fool, play the calf, and you'll always have the last laugh.
Wear the cap and the bells and you'll rate all the great swells.
If you become a doctor, folks'll face you with dread.
If you become a dentist, they'll be glad when you're dead.
You get a bigger hand if you can stand on your head.
Be a clown, be a clown, be a clown.
Be a clown, be a clown, all the world loves a clown.
Be a crazy buffoon and the 'demoiselles 'll all swoon.
Dress in huge baggy pants and you'll ride the road to romance.
A butcher or a baker, ladies never embrace.
A barber for a beau would be a social disgrace.
They'll come to call if you can fall on your face.
Be a clown, be a clown, be a clown.
Be a clown, be a clown, all the world loves a clown.
Be the poor silly ass and you'll always travel first class.
Give 'em quips, give 'em fun and they'll pay to say you're A-one.
If you become a farmer, you've the weather to buck.
If become a gambler you'll be struck with your luck.
But jack you'll never lack if you can quack like a duck.
Be a clown, be a clown, be a clown.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: jeffp
Date: 28 Apr 06 - 05:10 PM

My apologies too, Jack. Nice catch on the song. Very appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 05:56 AM

A link to a song in the Mudcat Song Book.

Were all right Jack

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 06:08 AM

I'm sure you can recall them Roger, should you think about it.
In the spirit of this conversation I prefer not to repeat gratuitious insults.

MMario - Of course if you had not followed the example set by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team that such things are acceptable on our forum - you would not have to worry about repeating them.

I like to try show my fellow posters the same respect that they show to me, and perhaps - as I have not resorted to calling you names and rather than you have to repeat the insults you now admit that you have publicly called me - perhaps you could simply apologise to me and our forum for this past lapse, not do it again and we can all move on?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 06:25 AM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: MMario
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 10:50 AM

Roger - Joe Offer doe not make up my mind for me, nor does he set the standard for my behavior.

Will you stop being a pedantic ass and actually discuss what you claim to have wanted to discuss for several years now? Or admit that you prefer to just cause a stink and piss people off? Because it has become obvious that either you ARE a pedantic ass - 9let me translate that east of the Atlantic for you - you are an arse0; or else you are a very twisted individual.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 10:51 AM

Subject: RE: BS: why all the closed threads?
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:49 PM

Yes, there have been a number of threads closed or deleted lately. Things have been unusually nasty around here this last week. Somebody suggested it might be the full moon that made Mudcatters crazier than usual.

Mick did a pretty good summary of the way we do things. They aren't rules, but they are the general procedures we follow. The general principle is that moderators will use a variety of moderation techniques to keep the peace, but that moderation techniques are to be used sparingly. When things are in an uproar, we moderate more strictly. When things are calm, we moderate hardly at all.

Personal attacks, racism, and Spam are deleted when we find them, and we consider blank messages to be Spam.>snip<

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 10:53 AM

Roger - Joe Offer doe not make up my mind for me, nor does he set the standard for my behavior.

Are you sure - he does not apolgise either.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 11:05 AM

MMario,

He's a clown. That's all. He's playing with you. That's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 12:54 PM

You can't make any criticism of the current 'system' without the individual fellow posters concern becoming sensitive and taking this personally. So what you get is a whole lot of criticism in return from these individuals some of them attacking you in return for the assumed personal attack they think you are making on them. even when you do not know who they are.....

My critism of those anonymous editors is not of them personally but of the devisive 'system' that results in this - them and us situation. Although I do not understand why some appear to be happy to nothing to prevent their fellow editors from excusing, justifying and defending examples of conduct that bring their own integrity into question.

But I still don't ' really see anything that could be thought 'nice' about anyone wanting to be in a position or to feel themselves qualified to imposed the judgement on their fellow posters. And to also wish to do it anonymously is something I really don't understand. Perhaps the problem is that the role has moved from simply being one of helping other posters when they requested this - to something else?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 05:02 PM

Will you stop being a pedantic ass and actually discuss what you claim to have wanted to discuss for several years now? Or admit that you prefer to just cause a stink and piss people off? Because it has become obvious that either you ARE a pedantic ass - 9let me translate that east of the Atlantic for you - you are an arse0; or else you are a very twisted individual.

MMario - Are you quite sure you are not following the example set by the the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team?

OK, so I suppose it's time to close this one, too. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know it doesn't have anything to do with everybody calling each other asshole.
That kind of stuff makes it really difficult to carry on an adult discussion.
-Joe Offer-

It is a Good job the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team he has already said he is not going to close this one.

MMario you are free to discuss whatever you wish in this thread - if you would stop posting only abusive personal judgements of your fellow poster - and say what it is - I will discuss it with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Apr 06 - 05:18 PM

He's not a pedantic arse. He's just a clown pretending to be one.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 05:27 AM

Do you need to be censored?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 06:45 AM

This is an example of what I mean when I go on about the current 'system' 'shaping our forum' to the personal tastes of a few.

Subject: RE: Song Challenge: Camilla and Charlie were lovers
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 23 Feb 05 - 02:51 AM

Can whoever placed the prefix 'Song Challenge' before the title that I chose for this thread please remove this prefix?

This thread is not a 'Song Challenge' and as far as I am aware the choice of using a prefix (or not) still remains an option for the poster. If anyone else wishes to change this - perhaps rather than simply impose this change - the origination could be asked for their opinion first?

Thank you.

Well, hello, Shambles- I added the explanatory tag to the thread title. If I had my druthers, all the song challenge threads would be on the bottom half of the Forum Menu - but they haven't been, so they'll stay up top. If I remove the "Song Challenge" tag, the thread will go to the bottom half of the Forum because the title makes it look like it's a BS thread. That's your choice - keep the tag, or have it removed and have the thread on the bottom half of the Forum Menu.
The Forum Menu is an index of the threads, and should give an idea of the contents of the threads.
If you want to turn this thread into yet another complaint about the way the Mudcat volunteers do their work, then it will end up in the "BS" section.
You can let me know your choice by personal message. I don't see that adding a thread title tag is anything to get upset about.

-Joe Offer-

The stark choice given was that this music related thread could only stay where it was originally posted if its title was changed (without the originators prior knowledge or permission). Or if the imposed change was removed - the music related thread would be relegated to the BS section.

And the manner of this imposed 'tinkering' is judged as nothing 'to get upset about'. I suggest that it was nothing to warrant any imposed editing action at all in the first place and could be seen to be personally motivated.

But the judgement and opinion expressed (along with the usual public threat) goes even futher. To the effect that all our forum's Song Challenges should be relegated along with the usual threat.

Now how is any poster supposed to see this form of editing action or the attitude and judgements behind it - as objective or in any way protecting us from personal attacks?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 10:05 AM

IME* as a therapist (oh God, not that again), there are people who, consciously or unconsciously, draw to themselves difficulies, problems, anger etc. This is not a therapy forum, obviously, so less can be effectively done.

   Roger is quite correct that if we don't like a thread, ceasing to post to it will have the effect that the thread will disapear. Logical.

   And of course "If you keep on doing what you've always done, you'll keep on getting what you've always got." If you like that sort of thing.

*IME (In my experience)


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 11:03 AM

And of course "If you keep on , you'll keep on getting what you've always got." If you like that sort of thing.

Whether you like it or not - you would always seem to get it dished out - would now appear to be the status quo.

But when major changes are publicly proposed to the status quo - by those who would impose constant restrictions to others on our forum, but are never satisfied - it offers an opporunity to examine if 'doing what you've always done' is really the best way to do it.

Perhaps a choice between 'doing what you've always done' and obtaining the 'required peace' - is one that now needs to be made?

When it is now accepted that 'doing what you've always done' will only result in 'getting what you've always got'? And not any form of peace at all.

For of course this current system of certain posters (some anonymous)imposing their judgement upon others - is NOT the way it was always done and its introduction has just created more open divison and conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 02:57 PM

Roger, you may well be right.

   I'm none too clear if you realise that the "if you keep on doing....." line applies quite as much to you and me as anyone else.

   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 03:05 PM

Why would need to carry on banging my head - if the wall is no longer there?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 03:31 PM

Dress in huge baggy pants and you'll ride the road to romance.
A butcher or a baker, ladies never embrace.
A barber for a beau would be a social disgrace.
They'll come to call if you can fall on your face.
Be a clown, be a clown, be a clown.
Be a clown, be a clown, all the world loves a clown.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 04:38 PM

In asking, you're doing what you've always done. Just so it's not overlooked, in asking, you're doing what you've always done.

The stance you're taking is very familiar to me, from the inside. It amounts to saying, "If only another/others would only ............(whatever).......then it would be ok." It amounts to not recognising/be prepared to see one's own part in the situation one objects to; in other words, seeing one's own responsibility in a given situation (NOT the same as "seeing that one is responsible for a situation"; STILL LESS THAT one is to blame).

And I know from my own struggles with this sort of scenario how one will fight against the suggestion."No,no,no,no, it's them, not me,it's them, them,them".

And one can hang onto this line thru everything. consequently, one sticks clam-like to "I'm right obviously".

Someone rightly pointed out somewhere on Mudcat that most of us think we're right, cos our lives would feel terrible, or we have catastrophic scenarios in our heads about the consequences,if we saw that we're mistaken, especially if we've held to a strong view for a long time and in public.



   Writing this has been helpful for me because I see how it is possible to confuse two separate matters so easily.

   One is about seeing the part one is playing in a situation one dislikes.
   
   The other (different and connected)is about right and wrong.

   As I've done in this post, I can swerve from one to the other as tho' they were the same.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 04:54 PM

Yes, the longer one holds to a given position the more one has invested in continuing to hold it.

It can be like the Americans in Vietnam...or Iraq. When do you abandon the position, and what will it cost in self-esteem and losing face when you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 05:00 PM

In asking, you're doing what you've always done. Just so it's not overlooked, in asking, you're doing what you've always done.

All I am doing is posting and trying to have a discussion on a discussion forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Apr 06 - 05:17 PM

You are right in many of the questions you ask, Roger, and I get annoyed when others blithely ignore your points and don't answer your questions.

And I get irritated when points that I've made get ignored. (I'll keep this up for a little while - otherwise please doNOT respond to this bit in parentheses).

Best wishes


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 May 06 - 04:23 PM

And I get irritated when points that I've made get ignored.

If so Ivor and for the sake of your blood pressure - I would question if you really are posting in the right place?

I take your point to be - that I am part of the problem?

Possibly, but that rather depends on what you think what the problem is that I am part of.

On one level - (in the face of some posters who appear to think they have some right to try all sorts of tactics to prevent this) - being able to continue posting my views and for others to be able to do this on our forum, is an end in itself.

It is difficult to see how I could solve this problem by NOT posting to our forum at all or posting only (more acceptable) views that would not be subject to the tactics I refer to.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 May 06 - 03:45 PM

Censorship and Attitude rolled into one

The above thread - after intentional attempts to turn the subject matter to the writing of a book. And after posts attempting to discuss the weather had been deleted, denied and then undeleted by those who feel themselve qualified to protect us - has been closed.

I suspect with much relief by the members of our editing team - under the excuse that the thread's originator asked for its closure.

I suggest that if the originator was not happy that the subject of this clearly titled thread was to be censorship and attitude - they should have chosen another title? Or now be asked to start a new thread with whatever title they may prefer.

Surely the object an originator starting a thread is to enable a discussion - not for them to subsequently be able to prevent other posters from continuing the one currently taking place on that thread's subject?   

Perhaps the thread can be re-opened to enable the discussion on that thread's subject - (clearly set out in the title on) censorship and attitude - to continue?

Or do I really have to dig-up all the posts where I am told by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team that a thread's originator does not have any subsequent rights over a thread that they start? Or will we now be told that this depends on which poster is asking and what the thread contains and who would prefer that it is closed?

Do I now have the right to ask and expect all the posts intentionally attempting 'hi-jack the threads I originated, to be deleted from them or will I receive an offer to close these also?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 May 06 - 04:12 PM

The above thread - after intentional attempts to turn the subject matter to the writing of a book.

That's a good link legend.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 06 - 04:32 PM

What is really good is "the Mudcat Editing Team" Long may they reign and also increase their activity.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: autolycus
Date: 02 May 06 - 06:16 PM

Roger, I appreciate yor response.

At my recent annual medical (I'm 60), my blood pressure was fine. When I get irritated, that's a long way from b.p. worries. It's not incandescent rage.

you're right that not posting at all is not a solution -that's an extreme response (bit like the leap to blood pressure). Mind you, I stopped posting on the astrology thread for a stated period ('bout 3 weeks)virtually completely without harm.

   Only posting what's acceptable - also bit extreme.

   Only there are other strategies.

   You've made some of your points over and over. (i really don't think the argument of the others is quite ON your points). I think you're making some of views interminably is counterproductive for you. In your shoes, I'd have said to myself,"There's none so deaf as those that will not hear. In the light of that thought,what am I doing by baging on. By doing so,I'M doing something, I'M contributing to this situation."

Einstein made a point a long time ago that the scientist is part of the experiment. Some scientists, and by extension, many people, haven't really taken that on board, and continue with the attitude that they are independant of the situation they are describing.

I've seen in groups how very, very resistant people are to the very idea that they are a part of a situation that they are describing, usually in terms of what OTHER PEOPLE are doing.

ANOTHER STRATEGY.

Don't try to change other people's opinions. Make your points and others will make theirs. Note which of your ideas people are ignoring and think ,"They're not ready to hear this ". Note which and how many of questions get answered and consider what might be going on that they aren't answering.

These are just thoughts, not commands. Obviously. What you do is your choice. Obviously.

I just mean there are even more possible responses to what's going on than you have hitherto come up with.

hence,"If you keep on doing what you've always done, you'l keep on getting what you've always got."

Best wishes (BTW, this is called critical support in the trade.)

   
   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 06 - 06:44 PM

BS: Censorship and Attitude rolled into one

That thread should be cross-linked to this one, just to present more of the picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: Bert
Date: 02 May 06 - 10:36 PM

Well, I posted a few times on that thread and didn't get a chance to respond to a guest who asked me a lot of questions.

So Guest why not log in as a member and send me a PM, and I'll answer your concerns.

Roger, I think that our voice has been heard and that 'the powers that be' now know that there WAS some indiscriminate editing actually happening. I consider that to be a considerable step forward in getting more respectful control from the moderators.

Whoever it was that was doing it was either annoyed, drunk or simply thought that they were doing the right thing. Whatever it was, I think that now Joe is on top of the situation, it should stop.

Personally, I see no need for further discussion on the subject unless it happens again.

Goodnight all. Sleep tight.

Bert.

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 May 06 - 05:14 AM

Don't try to change other people's opinions. Make your points and others will make theirs.

I am not sure I expect to change other peoples's opinions - I am prepared to change mine if I am presented with a reasoned view but not when presented with abuse, bullying, personal judgements and all other 'fun' tactics that are current to try and prevent open discussion. As mostly the point is to discuss and try and encourage discussion on things that a few others would rather prefer were not openly discussed on our forum at all.

I feel the only sensible way to change anyone's opinion (if that is the object) is to simply try and present the evidence that any reasoned opinion should be based on. For many opinions appear to be held and strongly expressed, despite the rather clear evidence that is provided. But that is their choice to accept the evidence or not. It is perhaps not their choice to try and prevent others from seeing the evidence and making their own choices?

The nature of our forum is such that many posters do not even read the previous posts in a thread - let alone read previous threads on similar subjects. So in order to present the evidence to as many posters as possible - it is ofen necessary to re-refer to things that regular contributors may find boring. But no one is being forced to open or read anything in any thread. This is a choice that few seem to even recognise is open to them - let alone for them to actually make that choice.

Perhaps it is this choice that should be encouraged - rather than encouraging posters to think they have some right to judge the worth of their fellow invited guests and to prevent others from posting what they choose?

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 May 06 - 05:41 AM

Is closing threads censorship?

---

Censorship and Attitude rolled into TWO

Subject: RE: BS: Do you need to be censored?
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 May 06 - 05:54 AM

Thread Proliferation Control   

The following from the above thread. [Now closed]

Subject: Thread Proliferation Control
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:51 AM

There were two Iraq threads started today that just didn't need to be started, since there already were a number of Iraq threads running. The new threads didn't deal with a major change - they were ancillary to the ongoing discussions. With a little thought, the thread originators could have fit their information into the ongoing discussion.
I think there's a general consensus that a very few people are starting a very large number of threads, and I think there is general annoyance with new threads started when there is already an ongoing discussion on a related topic. On music threads, we combine requests with previous threads as a matter of course. I've been wondering about the political and other BS threads, and I think maybe I'll go in the same direction.
When Iraq threads get started that don't really bring up a new topic, I think I'll move them into a Misc Iraq thread, or to an existing Iraq discussion. I suppose some of the thread originators won't like it, but maybe it will help them learn to fit their comments into existing threads, instead of fragmenting the discussion so much.
We have some fascinating people at Mudcat, people who have well-honed opinions on just about any subject you can think of. If they're interested in a subject, they will give a well-reasoned response that really gives you something to think about.
The way things have been, a small number of people have flooded the 'Cat with a huge amount of repetitive information, and the well-reasoned messages get drowned in the flood.
I really hate to delete messages unless they're clearly harmful, but I think maybe that a system of moving them may serve to focus the discussion. I think you'll note that the PEL people have settled down a bit. Maybe the Iraq folks will do the same.
-Joe Offer-

(copied over from the Help Forum [click])