 sj |
||
|
||
Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:12 PM Yeah but Shambo, ya' gotta' dig that there are a whole lot of threads basically dealing with the same thing.......you and your continuing whatever it is. You ask basically the same questions in each and every one so............. That's why I suggested your own complaint thread. If you could limit it to one, I wouldn't post on it at all, just stop injecting your Mudcat Miseries into almost every thread where you participate. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: catspaw49 Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:17 PM MICK----"I love this place. The irony alone is worth the price of admission." Ain't it wonderful? I haven't had this much fun in ages. artbrooks----I had entire sets of all teams from 56-62. Then I got tired of them and went on to other things. I used them for all kinds of things and they just laid around until my Dad asked me what I was going to do with them. I said nothing and we threw them out......................... I could have a handsome retirement............. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: The Shambles Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:28 PM 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. As no one is being force to stand and face the wind with me - there is little chance of me pissing on them. And if they do freely choose to stand next to me whilst I try to piss into the wind - perhaps they have no cause for complaint? END OF STORY? I am not sure I know what a thread hi-jack is - but it is an offence now covered by Mick's rules and a post did claim that this thread has been hi-jacked and officially hi-jacked at that..........is there such a thing? It seems a strange concept that the same action can both be against the rules but also thought by some posters to be offically encouraged and sanctioned. Well it may be thought strange in a normal universe .......... |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:29 PM wee wee wee... all the way home. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Janie Date: 21 Apr 06 - 10:57 PM "The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum." This story ended long before this thread was started. Once the story ends, the original topic of the thread would seem to me to be irrelevant, therefore any post on any topic would be very relevant on that thread, it being a thread whose main theme is irrelevancy. Eh? Roger, I was mistaken in my earlier post. It is impossible to hi-jack an irrelevant thread, since anything is revelant to a thread that is irrelevant. Now, this logic is twisted enough that I think you should be able to grok it quite easily, twisted logic being your specialty. And you know Rog? If I thought you truly didn't get what you were doing, I wouldn't dream of messing around with these absurd threads. But you are so perfectly passive-agressive that I believe you are very conscious and intentionally provoking. This is a lot of fun for you, IMHO. But guess what? You aren't the only one who gets to have fun with it. Now, I thought the Met was an opera house. You guys keep saying Mets. does that mean it is a chain or franchise?...Oh--baseball you say. Whose the goalie for the Mets? I mean, quarterback. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Bill D Date: 21 Apr 06 - 11:19 PM " It is impossible to hi-jack an irrelevant thread, since anything is revelant to a thread that is irrelevant." oohhh, Janie! You missed your calling!...that is pure Philosophy of Logic! Internally consistent and relevant....so I guess it is also irrelevant....wait, no---hmmm..if it is relevant to poke at an irrelevant thread with irrelevant relevance, then....uh.. anyway, it FELT scrumptious! |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: artbrooks Date: 21 Apr 06 - 11:23 PM Yeah, Spaw...I thought of that often as the girls' college tuition bills came in. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 06 - 02:59 AM But you are so perfectly passive-agressive that I believe you are very conscious and intentionally provoking. This is a lot of fun for you, IMHO. But guess what? You aren't the only one who gets to have fun with it. Janie- Now this is an interesting concept. I would dearly love to know what 'passive-aggressive' means in your book? But whatever this term means - the perception that I display this, that I am having 'a lot of fun' doing this and that earlier I had bullied you in some way- is taken by you as justification for all your subesquent actions to intentionally (in your words) hi-jack this thread. If this is what you consider to be the correct reaction to another poster being passive-aggressive - I wonder what your reaction would be to one who is agressive-agressive? Then perhaps you can better understand my reaction to such examples of it as the following? And why being placed in such a position when you are just trying to say what you honestly believe - is really very little fun at all.... 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- Now matter how our motives may be perceived - can I and other posters be free to 'piss into the wind' if that is our wish? I have provided new threads for discussion of subjects such as Grits etc - perhaps posts on these and others subjects can be placed in these threads? |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 06 - 03:41 AM When did I say that, Shambles, and in what context? - and how many times have you copy-pasted that particular post? If you wish to quote me, please provide at least the date I posted the original, and a link to the original. That's fair, isn't it? Oh, and don't forget my fee for any message of mine you copy-paste more than once. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 06 - 04:16 AM When did I say that, Shambles, and in what context? I hope you are not trying to maintain that you did not say it? You usually provide, explain and excuse this quote - I am waiting for you to do it this time also. But what would the context matter? This was posted publicly by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Can there really be any justification or excuse for any Chief Moderator to be seen publicly posting such things? And if any justificaton or excuses are given - how can you or anyone be surprised when setting such an example (and there are many more) results in it being followed by other posters making similar judgements of their fellow invited guests? |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: John MacKenzie Date: 22 Apr 06 - 04:52 AM If the facility for Mudcatters to use HTML was removed, it would limit the activities of some of the more prolific posters. On the basis of the greater good, it would benifit more than it would inconvenience. That plus a limit on the length of cut 'n pastes! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 06 - 04:55 AM The quotes are accurate, Shambles, but out of context, and that distorts their meaning. From the way you've used this quote, one would think you were the "pain in the ass" I was talking about. Come to think of it... |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: John MacKenzie Date: 22 Apr 06 - 05:20 AM It's called 'Tunnel Vision' Joe. G.. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 06 - 05:48 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. Joe Offer No doubt who these are addressed to - as if it mattered. 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 |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 06 - 05:57 AM 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: 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: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 22 Apr 06 - 09:45 AM I wonder what Shambles does with the rest of his life? I get an impression of a lonely man who just loves to stir up crap and cut and past irrelevant posts all day. The writing is on the wall, the FAQ speaks for itself, the definition that Shambles uses of "free speech" is not applicable to this type of situation, yet he continues to press on. I bet there is a real interesting story here, perhaps a sad one. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Manitas_at_home Date: 22 Apr 06 - 10:29 AM Yes, Roger. Give the dates and and thread names. It's not beyond you is it? You're actually quite adept at it. Or are we to assume you are deliberately quoting out of context to put Joe in a bad light? In other words, are you bullying and harrassing him? "The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum." (from the FAQ) |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 06 - 12:43 PM Yes, Roger. Give the dates and and thread names. It's not beyond you is it? You're actually quite adept at it. Or are we to assume you are deliberately quoting out of context to put Joe in a bad light? In other words, are you bullying and harrassing him? *Smiles* Not just a little bit of a double standard being shown here is there by you Paul? If I had posted anything like this incitement - would you be trying to defend me on grounds of context or on any other grounds? In what other context can you take these examples that would possibly show the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team in a good light? If the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wishes to deny making these quotes - I can certainly supply the threads and dates. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 06 - 01:41 PM Shambles has a complete catalog of every irritated word I've expressed in my nine and one-half years at Mudcat. You'll find I don't express irritation very often - but for each time I've lost my patience, Shambles has copy-pasted my words a dozen times. Doesn't seem quite fair, does it? I wonder why Shambles is so afraid to give dates and context when he uses my words. That doesn't seem quite fair, either. But heck, who ever accused Shambles of fairness? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Peace Date: 22 Apr 06 - 01:56 PM Sheesh . . . . All I did was mention the Mets to Bill. I wouldn't dream of hijacking this thread. Forsooth. So, here's the deal, Dobsie: it's all yours. (It was one of the few threads that contain mostly BS--but was still above the line when I set my BS filter--, having taken a 'vow' to avoid posting to BS for a month--that I could post to.) Now, there is one f#ck of a sentence! However, before I wander from the topic, allow me to state that it has been a pleasure reading the stuff about waterskis and diamond grit sandpaper. Although I disagree that it's good to sleep with skis on, it's your right. Excelsior! |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: The Shambles Date: 22 Apr 06 - 06:19 PM I wonder why Shambles is so afraid to give dates and context when he uses my words. That doesn't seem quite fair, either. You could always ask him? But...... If the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wishes to deny making these quotes - I can certainly supply the threads and dates. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 22 Apr 06 - 06:42 PM Guest, I mean Shambles, forget about Joe - I would like to see the threads and dates. Anyone else feel the same? |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Jeri Date: 22 Apr 06 - 08:41 PM Anyone who sees a major 'us vs. them' thing going on here betweene those who edit and those who don't, trace your belief that a division exists back to the very earliest, and you're likely going to find a post by Shambles criticising a division that didn't yet exist. Roger, you single admins out your special attention, then call us 'fellow posters' who should be no more equal than anyone else. Who claimed we were, other than you? You have to make us seem more significant than others, and make people believe that's what WE think, so knocking us down can make you look like you're doing something besides stalking, harrassing or run-of-the-mill macho head butting. It's a battle wholly of your own creation. YOU created the rift, YOU got into a pissing contest with Joe that seems to have grown to epic proportions, YOU post thread after thread that don't discuss anything so much as harrass individuals, then have the nerve to say, "...posters assume that I must have done something really awful... However, no one seems to know or be able to spell out exactly what this truly awful thing might be." I'll spell it out. My opinion. You stalk Joe. You try to create divisions between people so you have a crusade. Your actions are repetitive and boorish and, as far as I can tell, pointless. At least they're without any stated goals on your part. I think this is a vendetta, it's 100% personal, and the only goal I can see that would logically be at the end of your actions here is to keep the argument growing and the bad feelings increasing. You may honestly believe you're doing something else, but I rather think you DO know what you're doing, and I think you just hate Joe. Unfortunately, Joe has a very positive outlook regarding people, to a point that drives me nuts at time. What it means though, is that he will likely just keep being reasonable at you, and you'll keep trying to make him lose it. In the meantime, you've made yourself the only person on Mudcat I consistently hope never to meet. As far as I can tell you've done little, if anything, to make Mudcat a better forum, and a great deal to tear it apart, and for what? Your ego? Posting what other people say over and over is supposed to demonstrate what? You can't organize and post post your own words? No, I don't expect you to answer. I don't even expect you to wonder if, just maybe, you come off as a bit insane, or that I'm not simply trying to continue an argument but tell you, honestly, what I believe. I can understand that you don't expect others to try to post without guile, since you don't seem capable of it. *smiles* Any belief that this post means I wish to discuss rather than just make a statement is mistaken. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: michaelr Date: 22 Apr 06 - 10:27 PM Jeri -- amen, kudos, and thank you. I couldn't have etc etc. Now let's ban this obesessive-compulsive, passive-aggressive jerk already. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 22 Apr 06 - 10:46 PM No, don't ban Shambles, don't ban Martin, don't ban anyone. I have re-read my posts over the past few days, and I would like to say publicly that I apologize about going overboard. I was having fun at someone elses expense and that is not right. Some of my postings and proddings were no different than the crap Shambles has pulled. It just isn't worth getting upset about folks. Like television or radio, we have choices. We don't like a program - change the channel. If we were sitting in a bar and someone came in and started acting obnoxious like a few of our members and guests, we would either get in a fight or pick up our drink and go to another table. There will always be better discussions. It is not worth soiling your hands over worthless drivel. It was fun, but it was wrong. I am tired of this bickering. No one is going to convince anyone else that they are right or wrong. We each have our opinions and we should stick to it. I would hope that we can have real discussions and not be so stubborn that we can't listen to someone elses opinion. We might learn something. All this excessive crap isn't doing anyone any good. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Bill D Date: 22 Apr 06 - 11:42 PM yup! |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Peace Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:01 AM Does that mean I can post to this thread again? |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Peace Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:09 AM I WAS KIDDING. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Peace Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:19 AM '[Peace] "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." [Shambles] "As no one is being force to stand and face the wind with me - there is little chance of me pissing on them. And if they do freely choose to stand next to me whilst I try to piss into the wind - perhaps they have no cause for complaint?"' Shambles, I don't know if I understood you. 'Piss into the wind' is an expression used here to mean 'do something that is futile and self-defeating'. I think that some of your observations about various things are correct. Having said that, just beCAUSE you say it don't make it correct. Some valid points have been ridiculed I think because finding those points amidst such prolific posting would require a Cray computer to sort and catalog the nuance and innuendo. I disagree with those who have tried to shut you up, for they too are pissing into the wind, but I do not think you should be stifled. Remember, it ain't who ya know, it's who ya blow. You take care and have fun with your thread. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: GUEST,Mudcat Central Security Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:22 AM Just taking notes of the names here and what's being posted. Better behave yourselves. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Peace Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:24 AM OK, Suzette. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: GUEST,Mudcat Central Sucurity Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:32 AM I'll have no more of that Peace. I'm going to have to write you up. Once more and it's back being on probation for you. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Peace Date: 23 Apr 06 - 12:33 AM LOL |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:35 AM
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: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: catspaw49 Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:39 AM GREAT NEW GAME!!!ENTER NOW!!! Read Joe's post above and try to guess which pharse will be the most quoted by Sham. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Apr 06 - 03:10 AM If the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team wishes to deny making these quotes - I can certainly supply the threads and dates. I have made no attempt whatsoever to deny the quotes you post - I have simply requested that you furnish dates and context information Request denied. Learn to ive with it Do those quotes of yours sound familiar as well or do I need to supply the dates and context for those too? To talk as you do of context and irritation are excuses for the sort of reaction demonstrated here from any form of moderator are inexcusable. The context is that you are always setting an example. Your reactions must be seen in that context. To talk of me being unfair when the context of your many public attacks on me which example only encourages others to think such posts are also acceptable for them - are all because I try to point out the basic unfairness in your actions. And you don't like this and again you clearly demonstrate this. I have yet to respond to you or anyone else in this manner - I simply try to express my view. If this is pissing in the wind - so be it. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Apr 06 - 03:36 AM ...and go round and round and round in the circle game. I guess I'd better jump off this merry-go-round. I don't think we'll ever find out why he refuses to furnish dates and context information. I guess he'll just keep on having his circular conversation between himself and his copy-paste Joe Offer quotes. He gets flustrated and starts babbling if he has to respond to me directly. He'd much rather argue with an edited, out-of-context Joe Offer than discuss with the real Joe Offer. Think he'll start quoting "self-centered, puffed-up buffoon who has made a mockery out of himself"? Probably not - there's too much truth in it. It might be good if he'd think about it for a while. Maybe he'd realize that his constant attacks aren't doing himself any good, and they aren't doing anything to make Mudcat a better place. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Apr 06 - 04:38 AM How much have you paid towards the upkeep of the Mudcat Roger? Giok |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Once Famous Date: 23 Apr 06 - 05:56 AM The Internet is free, last time I looked. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Apr 06 - 06:38 AM Moderator = Someone who mediates disputes and attempts to avoid violence. ALL those who feel qualified to be moderators on our forum will perhaps accept that in order mediate in any disputes - they cannot be seen to be part of it? If they wish to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters - (in order to prevent abusive personal attacks as it is claimed) - they cannot be seen to indulge in setting or following the example of posting this or of posting any other form of personal judements of their fellow posters. Posters may well be publicly judged by some of our known moderators to be 'buffoons' or called worse names. But those who post only these public judgements have to accept that all posters are Max's invited guests and have the same rights to have their words remain as posted on our forum as everyone else - no matter how they and their motives are judged or whatever names they are called. Such public posting as we see evidenced here by some moderators - only brings all of our forum's moderators conduct into question. And any poster who questions the fairness of this current system - is encouraged to be seen a making personal attacks on all those in that role - even when many of them remain anonyous. The issue is not which side is right or wrong - but that all of our forum are being publicly invited by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team to openly support one side of a dispute. All that is needed on our public discussion is a way that we can all agree to disagree and not be bullied into accepting one view or of leaving. Perhaps if our moderators are really interested in fairness and in bringing peace - they can be asked to choose to be either a moderator or a fellow poster? Then some form of lasting peace will at least have a chance. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Apr 06 - 06:48 AM That is why you are tolerated here MG! |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Alba Date: 23 Apr 06 - 07:33 AM The Internet may very well be Free. The Mudcat however does not operate for nothing. Although some are of the opinion that it does, an opinion which is simply wrong. Which leaves the question open. How much over your Years of your Membership Roger have you contributed to the Mudcat to keep it up and running...? Before you say your usual rebuff I shall say it to you,... DO YOU NEED TO BE CENSORED! |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Apr 06 - 08:41 AM What it means though, is that he will likely just keep being reasonable at you, and you'll keep trying to make him lose it. Let us examine this quite prosterous senario. For a start - if the The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team had ever been reasonable or just as importantly, ever accepted the realities of our forum and not set out to shape it to his tastes - I would not have had any justification for ever suggesting to him that I or any other poster had been unfairly treated. But I have now clearly evidenced that this is not the case and it is this evidence and the excuses, justification and defences given for this unfair treatment- that results in the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team 'losing it' and publicly calling Max's fellow invited guest names. The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team then publicly excuses, defends and justifies the example set of the personal attacks he makes and expects (and usually receives) support from the usual suspects who then follow this example and mount (and are permitted to mount) personal attacks against the usual selected easy targets - who are also Max's invited guests. And this is reasonable? The moment you describe anyone as reasonable - it then follows that anyone who disagrees with this person - is being unreasonable. It then becomes a popularity contest - and under these rules - there can only be one winner. But our forum is for discussion and to enable us all be able to disagree it is not a contest. All that is expected is that all posters can post on equal terms and to see their words remain as posted. We have posters who are still inhibited form posting Birthday Threads, and anything that could be judged as a copycat thread. No one knows if they should refresh an old thread or start a new one - as both can be judged to be wrong. Silly little details like the posting of 100th post claims are blown out of all ptoportion. Threads are closed - mainly it appears because they now can be. Entire threads are now deleted and changes to thread titles can be imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission. And all these imposed changes are still not enough for the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Who has now proposed the members only posting of BS and a 'review' of all Guest posts to the music forum. What other changes is he intending to impose? And all this is done under the cover of protecting posters from personal attacks...............This is reasonable - or fair? And is it anything like the original concept of our forum that so many of us felt welcomed, safe and tolerated in? |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:33 PM Your constant barrage of anti-Mudcat posts has effectively squelched legitimate discussion of Mudcat policy - because YOU twist every such discussion toward yourself. What would the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team consider to be an anti-Mudcat post? It would appear that is encouraged to be any view that is a different one to that expressed by the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. Who would only appear to be happy with our forum - by needing to constantly impose changes and restrictions to further judge and inhibit his fellow posters in order to shape every aspect of our forum to his requirements. Who can have no real interest in preventing posters from personal attacks - as to succeed in this will mean that there is then no excuse and cover for this constant tinkering, ordering and fixing of things that are not broken. In fact no one can now legitimatly question Mudcat policy without this being portrayed as a personal attack on the poster who is currently the Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team - because they have become one and the same thing. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Apr 06 - 01:53 PM I suggest that Joe Offer sends a copy of every rude malicious foul mouthed and abusive post that he has to delete and send it to Roger, in order to demonstrate that editing is necessaery on this and all other fora. Personally though I would gladly grant you the martyrdom you so obviously desire and ban you from ever wasting Mudcat bandwith ever again. Sometimes when I read your silly twisted posts my hand itches to reach for my phone and dial the local hardware store to order two pieces of wood and 5 long nails, two of which would be to fasten the pieces of wood together! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: The Shambles Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:00 PM I suggest that Joe Offer sends a copy of every rude malicious foul mouthed and abusive post that he has to delete and send it to Roger, in order to demonstrate that editing is necessaery on this and all other fora. Sadly I (and the rest of our forum) have enough problems with the ones - for some unknown reason - The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team chooses not to delete... 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................ |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: katlaughing Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:33 PM If Joe did that Giok, Shambles would just use them, posting them ad infinitum et ad nasueum. |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Peace Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:38 PM One. Two. You KNOW what comes next . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: Peace Date: 23 Apr 06 - 02:42 PM Imagine Shambles as the lamp . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: Music posts by Guests to be reviewed.(2) From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Apr 06 - 03:21 PM I prefer to imagine him as the other thing that attracts flies! G. |
| Share Thread: |
