Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:06 PM

Hey, Wesley, I'm glad somebody caught on that pre-posting review of Guest messages was a suggestion. I think it's a tool I'd like to have when things are out of control, something we could turn off when Mudcat is peaceful.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:18 PM

I don't want to be left out.


The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:27 PM

Hey, Wesley, I'm glad somebody caught on that pre-posting review of Guest messages was a suggestion. I think it's a tool I'd like to have when things are out of control, something we could turn off when Mudcat is peaceful.
-Joe-

Perhaps it was a suggestion that could have been made to those posting on the part of the forum that it concerned - so they could discuss it and see if they liked the idea of this tool in your hands as much as you obviously do?

The proposal to further restrict this section and change it to members only was made here and this did at least enable some form of discussion to take place.

Is it safe for our forum to now accept that neither of your two latest suggestions are going to be agreed to by Max?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:36 PM

"Perhaps it was a suggestion that could have been made to those posting on the part of the forum that it concerned - so they could discuss it and see if they liked the idea of this tool in your hands as much as you obviously do? "

Why? It is not a call to be made by the forum. None of our business.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:39 PM

You never know, Shambles.
Sometimes, Max agrees with me.
Sometimes, though, it seems that he agrees with you.
Sometimes, even I agree with you.
And sometimes not.
And this is the stuff of 200-plus message Shamblesthreads....
-Joe Offer-
255

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:55 PM

Why not make life easier and just screen Shambles' messages? Most of them were posted weeks before anyway. Little Sir Echo causes more useless threads then Martin Gibson.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 03:59 PM

None of our business

P.S. Ron Olesko, your levity may be a bit strange at times, but that seems to be a perfect fit for Mudcat.
Joe Offer

END OF STORY?

The suggestion (or threat) to change our forum to a members only club was made publicly - so this was obviously thought to be our business.

The other fairly obvious suggestion that further restrictions of the BS would mean that the music forum would be affected by the non members excluded from the BS section - was made by our forum. It was an aspect seemingly overlooked by the original suggestion.

But the further suggestion to review all Guest posts on the music section (where there does not appear to be any problems nneding yet more imposition) was soon speedily tacked-on.   

Joe if the current state of our forum is not to your tastes and can only be made so by the imposition of yet more restrictions - perhaps you can consider this suggestion?

That you form a site of your own and leave this one alone and to those of us who do like it as it is and without your constant efforts to shape our forum to your tastes.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 04:04 PM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

End of story

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 04:07 PM

'"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

End of story'

I think not Ron. Part of the story, maybe.

I have exchange messages with Martin Gibson and registered with him that I felt a few of his posts crossed 'the line'. I find the thread he started wherein he said he's going to Europe to be very offensive, and despite people saying 'if ya don't hate him then you love him and therefore are like him in every way' to be simplistic bullshit. One of those remarks was made by someone who posts her hatred of males very often. Not unlike some of Martin's less fortunate remarks. However, the point is this: That thread is filled with invective and hatred posted by 'the guy next door regular member' of Mudcat. That thread should have been deleted or many of the posts on it deleted. That hasn't happened. It serves to show that the editing of remarks will depend not on content but rather on who is being attacked and by whom. Go to the FAQ, a good missive that has been selectively quoted, and read the WHOLE paragraph on Censorship. It's under the heading "Etiquette and Advice". I guess that some folks is more equal than others.

Shambles: I realize that occasionally you can be a single-issue guy. However, until a law is passed that makes that illegal, you just keep writing and addressing what you perceive to be a problem. Many of the folks speaking against you or subjecting you to ridicule have said in the past that 'if one doesn't like a thread, all one has to do is not open it'. Physician, heal thyself.

I don't think you're gonna change jackshit here, Shambles, but no one has made it against the law to piss into the wind.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 04:08 PM

I'll second that:


"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

End of story

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 04:10 PM

Second that? More like 1,627,348th it.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 04:19 PM

Peace, it's deja vu all over again! :)

See my original response at 10:45am!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 04:46 PM

Does anyone remember Polanski's film 'What?'

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 04:52 PM

Gawd. I saw his "Macbeth" and that was enough Polanski for me, Wolfgang.

BUT, was that the film where the guy drives off furiously and ends up back where he started and that keeps happening?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 05:07 PM

"Perhaps we can leave our forum to judge if their are any merits in your latest personal judgement of me?"

hey, sure. I'll be glad to put it to a vote...*grin*...will you?

(of course, ANY comment *I* make is a 'personal judgement', while yours are just something like clarifying suggestions, hmmm?)
Putting 'perhaps' before half your posts don't alter the fact that you do just as much 'judging' as anyone.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 05:20 PM

There is a school of thought that holds to the philosophy, that if one doesn't actually reply to a Shambles Thread, it goes below the line quite quickly.

A boycott of Rambles' shamblings,rather than 'personal judgement', "perhaps".
How many times does one have to tell anyone anything?


ONCE!

Physician heal thyself, indeed!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 05:47 PM

"How many times does one have to tell anyone anything?"

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞³

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 05:48 PM

So, what d'ya think of those Mets?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 06:06 PM

Mets are nothin' without Stengel!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 06:08 PM

I HEAR THAT!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 06:22 PM

Ah screw the Mets......How about a new game?

POST YOUR FAVORITE SHAMBLE-ISM

Enter early and often!!! Post as many as you like and maybe we can vote later?!?!?!? Or not..

Roger is very creative in his choice of words and there are some real gems that we all love or hate or love to hate!

WHAT ARE YOURS???

I'll start with a real beauty:

"Anonymous Volunteer Fellow Posters"

Really gives you the McCarthy era/HUAC Committee hearing feel doesn't it? The clones are not only evil but COMMUNISTS!!!!

Next?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 06:54 PM

I am red, red, red!! Or, is it pinko, pinko, pinko?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:03 PM

Let's go Mets. Lookin real good this year!   I went to my first game of the season last Saturday. Even though it was one of the 4 games they have lost so far this season, I still had a great time.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:08 PM

If there was a rainout would the stadium be "SUBJECTED TO IMPOSED CLOSURE?"

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:19 PM

There is a marginally interesting power trip being played out on this thread. A week or so ago mick said threads deliberately hijacked would be deleted/closed. This is one of those without a doubt. And there have been a few lately. All with the same posters.

But with mods posting to it what is to be done? Another public mod v mod altercation? Or does it be allowed to run and run? Joe et al you are putting yourselves up as beyond censorship, yet cry for it for others. Very sad.

Does anyone actually find this drivel in the least bit funny except for those feverishly hitting the keyboard. It's like watching a car being driven by someone who shouldn't be driving a car. Uncomfortable and barely in control.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:28 PM

I agree Guest......Let's close this sucker!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:28 PM

"The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum."

And, as was said in every Looney Tune cartoon..."that's aaaaaaaaaaaall folks!!"

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:29 PM

Why not just refrain from posting to it?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:29 PM

" It's like watching a car being driven by someone who shouldn't be driving a car."

piffle!It isn't any such thing!

Wanta hear what I think anonymous posts are like? No?....

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:32 PM

"Why not just refrain from posting to it?"

'Cause I still gotta know why Bill thinks Casey Stengel was so important to the Mets.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:37 PM

If this empowers you then so be it.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:45 PM

Casey gave them 'character'....they had an identity, as well as a knowledgeable old fart with ages of experience to show 'em HOW to win. It was an adventure, as well as a job, and the desire to give Casey "one more title" must have been a bit of a game to play, too!

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Peace
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 07:50 PM

Thanks, Bill. He was fun to watch also.

Casey Stengel Official Site.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:55 PM

Casey Stengal was important to the Mets

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:00 PM

Bill was right about Casey. He gave the Mets character. He could not show them how to win, in fact he fell asleep on the bench. But he made the game interesting and fun - just like threads on Mudcat used to be (note the connection to the topic).

I also loved Casey because he came back after the Yankees fired him. He showed them that he still had the stuff.

Casey also spoke a language all his own - Stengelese. When he did not wish to respond to a reporter, he would give a sort of doubletalk. If you listened closely, you knew what he was trying to say. (Sort of like the relationship of this topic to this thread).

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:01 PM

If all the posts that were attempts to 'hijack' this thread were deleted from it - it would not be such a long thread - if the stated 'procedure' were being followed..............

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. Multiples of ongoing threads are usually combined with the earlier thread by moving messages, or closed and redirected to the earlier thread. Here's what Mick said about our procedures:


All, with the exception of the trollers and flamers, have pretty well accepted that reasonable moderation is necessary. As I understand the rules, it goes something like this.

As a rule, if two threads are talking about essentially the same thing, the messages are transferred and one is closed.

If a thread is nothing more than a personal attack, it is generally closed.

If a post is an attempt to hijack a thread, it can be deleted.

Copycat threads are looked at carefully, and if they add nothing to the discussion, they can be deleted. This is generally the call of Joe and Jeff.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:05 PM

Note the words "can be" in the above. That is a lot different than "will be".

I am not noting a lot of complaints, except for one person and an anonymous guest.

Besides, Casey Stengel is relevant to this topic. You can look it up.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:12 PM

Complaints?

None of our business - END OF STORY.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:13 PM

You finally got it right Shambles.

Casey Stengel also said - "You gotta learn that if you don't get it by midnight, chances are you ain't gonna get it, and if you do, it ain't worth it."   Some good words of advice that fit this thread.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:16 PM

The question that has never been properly addressed is...were the Mets important to Casey Stengal? Could he have climbed to the pinnacle of his peak if he had been with, for example, the Toledo Mudhens?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:27 PM

He climbed to the pinnacle with the New York Yankees, who discarded him because they thought he was too old.   The Mets, a brand new team in NYC, asked him to be their first manager because they new he still had charisma and could make a team of castaways and aging former stars into a team that people would enjoy. He proved himself again and again.   Yes, the Mets were just as important to the Old Professor because they gave him the opportunity.

Casey also said ""I always heard it couldn't be done, but sometimes it don't always work."    Sort of like some people on this Mudcat thread.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:39 PM

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Janie - PM
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:00 PM

Oh no you don't! This thread has officially been hijacked--and we ain't given up w'out a fight!!!!

Joe or Mick - Is there now such a thing?

Is that any thread where a certain poster is always permitted without censure to suggest a course of action to disrupt, divert a thread in an attempt to shout a fellow poster down and a few posters are always willing to follow suit and join in the example set of bullying, offensive language, scatological references and name-calling?

It would appear that some posters may be under the impression that such things are officially sanctioned and they are safe to follow this example as these are now also viewed as 'kinda fun' on forum - are they?

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:44 PM

Roger, your wishes will be honored. Would you like me to close this thread?

Mick

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:47 PM

I wish people would lighten up a bit.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:57 PM

Wouldn't you have loved to be in the dugout and clubhouse with Yankees in the 50's? Casey and Yogi each speaking their own language.......Casey riding Mantle.......Mantle, Ford, Martin.....What an era that was.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:01 PM

Would you like me to close this thread?

Mick-

That was not the question I asked. If I had asked for this - why would you consider that my wishes should be more important than any other contributor to this thread's subject? Why do you appear so keen to delete this thread?

Why would there be any need for such drastic action as closing an entire thread just because there is an attempt to 'hi-jack it? But you did not say you would delete the entire thread in such cases - you said post.

If a post is an attempt to hijack a thread, it can be deleted.

This thread would be a lot shorter if all the posts attempting to hi-jack it - were to be deleted. The length of the thread seems to be an issue for some posters- who lengthen it even further when they post just to say so.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:06 PM

If some posters think an entire thread will be removed because of their efforts to intentionally hi-jack it - such a result will be seen as a reward for their attempts - will it not?

Such editing actions will only be seen to be encouraging such attempts...

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:07 PM

Excuse me, but what makes Shambles an arbiter on what consititues an "attempt to hijack"? Any "normal" conversation will have drifts. If the thread were hijacked, there would be no attempt made at getting back to the original topic. I feel that all the posters have done that.   I do not think that Shambles should become an arbiter for taste or content. Just because someone does not agree with him does not give him the right to make such calls.   There is a great deal of humor, healthy sarcasm, and good conversation. If Shambles does not wish to particpate, that is his right.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:09 PM

I sure wish I still had my complete set of 1956 World Series baseball cards...but alas, I clipped them on to the wheels of my bicycle and rode off into the sunset after Stengel and the Yankees won.

Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:11 PM

I love this place. The irony alone is worth the price of admission.