HI Max: What about Shambles requests?

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 03:45 PM

Yes, do that, Shambles. I have PM'd Wolfgang on numerous occasions, and he always responds in an erudite, polite, and totally informative manner. Wolfgang is a person whom one can PM with absolute confidence of receiving a satisfying response.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 04:45 PM

While you're at it there Shamballess......Why not PM MAX along with Wolfgang? Oh yeah, I forgot......Max won't give you a satisfying response will he?

Spaw

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 05:47 PM

.... oh, yeah ..... by the way ...... it ain't our forum. We just use it. It's Max's. Just pointing out your use of a very old tactic. When you need a false premise upon which to build your arguments, you just say it enough times until it is perceived to be true. Guys like you are champs at this.

Did you ever do the two things Spaw asked? I didn't think so. That would provide truth, and we can't be having that, now can we?

Now, let's see ..... I believe we were on the fallow fellow performing fellatio on the fawning faerie flexing in the field.........

Mick

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Sorcha
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 06:51 PM

This is just getting too funny. Shambles, I'm so very very sorry for everything I've done. (just thought I should apologize too)

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 07:03 PM

I'm as sorry as I can be.

~S~

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 12:37 AM

Yeah. As for me, I'm almost ready to commit ritual suicide over some of the thoughtless things I've said...

But first I have to complete my Winona Ryder picture collection.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:18 AM

Sorry just isn't the word!

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:57 AM

Let's spell it out for you.

1) "Yes, Roger, if you posted to one of those general brawl threads or Spam threads that was deleted, then your message was deleted along with it. That happened with a number of Martin Gibson threads, because it was impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you wish to have copies of any of those messages, I will gladly send them to you, suitable for framing. I didn't find any of them just now - but if you tell me where they are....I didn't know you were in the habit of posting to Martin Gibson and Spam threads.[sigh]"

2) "OK, Roger. I am so sorry for whatever you require me to be sorry for; and at the same time, I am especially sorry for whatever else I'm supposed to be sorry for. Does that make you happy? I DO want you to feel good about this.
....or was it Mmario or Big Mick or katlaughing or Catspaw that was supposed to be sorry? I'm so confused. What thing? What past?
Who cares?
-Joe Offer-"

3) "No, Roger. I see no need to apologize. I haven't found any of your words that were deleted, although I concede that one or two of your 8,362 posts may have been deleted, if they were in a thread that was deleted. I did a quick check, and found none. It's not an all-encompassing check, but a quick check shows nothing. You're back to quoting out-of-context remarks from 2003 - comments that make very good sense when read in context. You've gone looney again. It's time to go back into your hole. Goodbye, Roger.
Maybe you just don't get it. It's worthwhile to respond to you when you're reasonably rational, when you address an actual issue. When you resort to two-year-old, out-of-context quotations and ad hominem attacks and one-in-a-million situations, you've gone too far, and there's no reasoning with you. Then it's not fun any more. Go hibernate, and come back when you're ready to be rational.
-Joe Offer-"

1) Joe is saying that if you posted to an MG or spam thread the message is gone. So if you remember how many times you posted to whatever many of those threads, you've got the number right there.

2) Is irrelevant.

3) No WORDS in your posts were deleted, but some posts have gone along with entire threads. See #1.
The advice is still good.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 05:01 AM

Sorry - seems to be the hardest word.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 10:24 AM

Brevity already!! Now there's a new side to Roger that I didn't suspect he posessed.
G..

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 10:28 AM

To quote an old friend of mine, DANG!

Jerry

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 11:00 AM

Hey! Hey, FLIPhead!!! Have I, like, got yer full attenshun here?



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DELETE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



(holdin'up my middle finger in yer flippin' direction)

And if I knew flippin' HTML I would have put it in red letters 5 feet high.

- BDiBR

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: GUEST,G
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 11:29 AM

I just finished reading this thread for the first time (speed read type so I could have missed something but I doubt it).

With regard to this thread;

1. Why?
2. Does anyone know the quandry? (Quoting Amos)
3. What has been resolved?
4. Hamsters are hurting.
5. My head is hurting.
6. Harpgirl has no patience.
7. Much ado about nothing?
8. World hunger could have been resolved with the effort expended   
   here.
9. But........probably better than watching TV.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: JennyO
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 11:32 AM

Only marginally...

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 11:42 AM

It's not about whether a person might care enough or not but whether they can distance feelings enough to do thier duty, a duty which could mean letting something stand you want to delete or deleting something you want to let stand. One trusts that people they appoint to carry out such tasks are up to that.

What happens at the point when it is perfectly clear from the evidence - that it would be very unwise to place your trust in these people's ability to do this?

And when it is also clear from the evidence - that they are not up to such tasks - but when it is also quite clear that they still intend not only to continue to expect that trust - but to insist and demand that trust is given to them?

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Janie
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 11:51 AM

Earth to Roger? Earth to Roger?

We can hear him, but he can't hear us.

Ohmygawd, he's got the hampsters!!!!

J.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: MMario
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 11:54 AM

And when it is also clear from the evidence What evidence?- that they are not up to such tasks - but when it is also quite clear that they still intend not only to continue to expect that trust - but to insist and demand that trust is given to them?

You miss the entire point again Shambles - the matter of trust is between the volunteers and Max - not the volunteers and the posters. This is Max's site; he chose the people who volunteer their time and efforts - and he is satisfied with their work.

Any other point is moot.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 12:04 PM

Does anyone wish to answer the following?

1. Who are 'The Clone Department' now?

2. How many of them are there now?

3. Is it really so helpful or proportionate now - for any of these fellow posters to have the choice of being anonymous?


Now that we seem to eventually have some agreement on this thread that the ablity for one poster to anonymously impose their words upon a fellow poster cannot be dismissed as 'minimal' - perhaps some agreement could also be made about when our forum feels the exercise of such imposition is proportionate and by whom?

At the moment our volunteer fellow poster's understanding is - when ever they wish to. Do you consider this to be this proportionate or desirable on our forum?

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: MMario
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 12:14 PM

1) no one's business except Max's

2) No one's business except Max's

3) Max does not require them to reveal themselves - therefore they don't have to.

perhaps some agreement could also be made about when our forum feels the exercise of such imposition is proportionate and by whom?

The forum has no say in the matter. Nor do the posters on the forum. The site belongs to Max. max has already made the decision by granting the clones the rights to edit.


At the moment our volunteer fellow poster's understanding is - when ever they wish to. I highly doubt it. Evidence? ANY evidence?

Do you consider this to be this proportionate or desirable on our forum? this question has no relavance whatsoever except as a theoretical supposition. Expecially since it is preceeded by several erroneous statements.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: artbrooks
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 12:27 PM

Well, perhaps some clarification would be useful. Is a volunteer fellow poster the same as a "Joe Clone." Or am I/we somehow being compelled to post? And who really cares who they are and how many of them there are? Or is there some supressed need to compose a song about Joe Offer and the Seven...Nine...Eight-Six...Clones? Should we give them name? After all, most people hear use something other than their real name. How about Bashful, Shy, Anonymouse, Timid, Pseudonomious and so forth? Any maybe, as they are imposing their unrestrained will upon innocent posters, they can change the poster's name to something appropriate.....Grumpy, perhaps?

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: kendall
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 12:57 PM

Shambles, what part of what MMario said do you not understand? It is quite clear to most of us that this site belongs to Max. We have NO say in how it is run. All we have is the freedom to leave. Enough already!

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: GUEST,Yawn
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 01:06 PM

...it is perfectly clear from the evidence that it would be very unwise to place your trust in these people's ability to do this?

...it is also clear from the evidence - that they are not up to such tasks -

He thinks if he keeps on saying things like this over and over again, that we will start to accept it as fact. The fact is there is NO evidence, and it is NOT perfectly clear - only in his obsessed mind. The rest of us, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY - MAX, seem to be quite happy with the job they are doing. If there are any minor problems, most of us are perfectly content to communicate with them privately.

This guy has only one objective - to make trouble for Joe and the Clones. If he really wanted change, he would communicate with Max, but of course he has proved that he has no intention of doing that.

And so it goes on......and on.........and on.............

I could easily stay away from this thread, but there is a kind of morbid fascination in watching - it's rather like watching an infinite loop of film of a train wreck.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:08 PM

Shambles, what part of what MMario said do you not understand? It is quite clear to most of us that this site belongs to Max. We have NO say in how it is run.

Kendall - It is indeed long been clear that this site belongs to Max and I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run.

However this is a part of Max's website that he has very generously set aside for invited contributions from the public and called the Mudcat Discussion Forum. I have some agreement - for my reference to this part of Max's site - as our forum. It is from a very unlikely source - and perhaps you would agree with the both of us?

[PM] Joe Offer BS: Censorship on Mudcat (1009* d) RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat 31 Mar 05

Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos.

So, Max appointed some of us to try to keep down the worst of the nastiness. We don't do enough to satisfy some people (Clinton Hammond, for example), and we do too much to satisfy Shambles.

So, we continue to stumble along what we see as the middle path, knowing that we will never satisfy everybody. Such is life.

-Joe Offer-

Our forum is certainly not Joe Offer's and it does not say that it is in the FAQ - yet.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: MMario
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:31 PM

YOu did see that part about "Max appointed"?

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:42 PM

The word was 'appointed' - it was not anointed.

The word 'we' used to mean all Mudcatters.

When anyone referred to 'us' it used to mean all Mudcatters.

Any of us who claim to appreciate the fine thing The Mudcat Forum became (and any part they may had played in that) – should feel sad at the needless division that has resulted in a situation where - when these words are now used on our forum – they do not have the same meaning.

Sometimes you first have to recognise and accept that something IS broken - before you can find a way to fix it……..

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: MMario
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:46 PM

Roger - you are as guilty as anyone on this forum of using "we" when you actually mean "in my opinion" or "I".

And there have been groups with divergent interests on this forum since before I joined. There is rarely a time when ANYONE on this forum has been able to use "us" to mean "all mudcatters" with confidence.

Sometimes a lone voice calling in the wilderness isn't a prophet - it's just wrong.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:22 PM

When Joe Offer now uses the word 'we' he does not mean all of us - does he? Whatever our differences - do you not think this is now rather sad?

MMario all I am 'guilty' of is holding, trying to express (in my own words) and evidencing a view that may be different to yours on a discussion forum generously set up for that very purpose on Max's website.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:26 PM

LMAO at Roger's answers............The boy has more shit than a Christmas goose!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: MMario
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:29 PM

Roger - you must consider context.

And while you may feel you are carrying on a discussion - you will note from many peoples posts on this and your other threads that the majority of people who comment consider that you are carrying on a pointless repetitious diatribe.

Those questions that can be answered for you have been answered. those questions that have not been answered the owner of the site has requested be discussed off forum, privately. Yet you continue to bring them up here.

That is not discussion. It doesn't even begin to resemble discussion.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 06:18 PM

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 02:08 PM

...

... I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run.

Now I've seen everything! There is nothing to say, after a statement like that. Oh I know more will BE said, but really! This is too much!

~Susan

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 06:32 PM

Shambles says:

I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run.

Oh, Lordy, Lordy, Lordy!
How I've longed for this day!!!

Thank you so much, Shambles. Now we can all go about our business without all your lecturing.

I hope you enjoyed my story in the other thread. I made up the part about HappyGirl to add a little sexual tension to the story. She doesn't really love you - but sex sells, you know.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 07:02 PM

If Max was not happy with the work of the clones he would take away their ability to make changes. As he hasn't I, for one, can only assume that he has no problem with what is being done.

From the posts here and on the complaint thread it is clear that the MAJORITY of posters to these threads are of the same opinion. Those who have not posted clearly are not bothered either way, otherwise they would have read the threads and posted to them.

Democracy is a wonderful thing, isn't it!

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 07:58 PM

Roger, as a clone, I feel compelled to answer your questions.

1. Who are 'The Clone Department' now?

None of your friggin' busininess

2. How many of them are there now?
None of your friggin' business

3. Is it really so helpful or proportionate now - for any of these fellow posters to have the choice of being anonymous?
This is also none of your friggin' business, but the answer is "yes"

I also feel compelled to say I am sorry, so here goes.

I am sorry that you ever showed up here.

Further, I am sorry that you are allowed to keep this nonsense going.

Finally, I am sorry that you don't quit and leave in peace.

Mick

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: kendall
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 08:27 PM

Seems to me if we knew who all the clones were, it would simply lead to a lot of personal attacks instead of general pissing and moaning.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 08:48 PM

I don't give a hoot who the clones are or how many of them there are. They are needed. If I didn't like this place, I wouldn't come here.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: SINSULL
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 09:53 PM

Many years ago on an endlessly long drive during which my brothers and I incessently whined "Are we there yet?", my grandmother introduced Monkey in the Courthouse.
"Monkey in the Courthouse
Monkey wants to speak
Speak, monkey, speak!"

It worked on the under ten crowd. Should work here.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Azizi
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 10:49 PM

In similar fashion, when I was a child, my mother introduced my sisters and me to the "the last one to speak is a rotten egg" game. Since no one wanted to be a rotten egg, persumably everyone would stop talking.

But sometimes it's so hard to stop talking when you're told to. And apparently it's hard to stop 'talking' when you haven't anything of substance to say.

Maybe the next time 'someone' talks who keeps saying the same thing over and over and over again, one of us should bring out the kids games.

If the monkey in the courthouse game doesn't get'em, then maybe the rotten egg game will. After all, we're all still kids at heart.

And some of us are more so than others.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: GUEST,615
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 11:12 PM

OK - The next one to post is a rotten egg !!

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 02:08 AM

Seems to me if we knew who all the clones were, it would simply lead to a lot of personal attacks instead of general pissing and moaning.

Kendall - most of the abusive personal attacks, pissing and moaning are currently coming from the volunteer fellow posters that are known to us (and those that post to blindly support them). Joe Offer, Mick, jeri and kat etc do not appear to be being responded to in in kind - do they?

The anonymous ones could be chipping in too - but we would not know this.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 04:00 AM

I'm distressed at the blatant discrimintation against gerbils in this thread. Gerbils are just as sweet as hamsters (with or without 'P') and have the benefit of nigh on perpetual motion, something your average hamster can barely even dream of.

A computer powered by gerbil goes faster than any Broadband or super duper highway. I just wish the cats wouldn't eat them so quickly.

Oh and a direct quote from Shambles from one of his first few posts here.....

"End of......... "

Oh how we wish.....

LTS

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 04:14 AM

Well Liz that seems only fair, after all look what the Desert Rats did to Rommel; I think it's the long back legs that make the difference myself.
Giok

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 04:22 AM

Roger, I don't need to know who the clones are. If one has a complaint one takes it up with Joe Offer, if that doesn't work, Max. Would you also like the address, phone number and CV of the Clones?
The way you rip into Joe, I can't blame the Clones for wanting annonimity.
Joe is contributing generously of his time and patience to help run this place, leave him alone, find something else to fill your time.
You are a master of taking things out of context.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: Azizi
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 06:48 AM

GUEST,615's post started the rotten egg game.

I guess it's fitting that Shambles was the next person who posted on this thread and thus was the winner of that game.

PEE-YEW!!!
[This is the expression that my sisers and I directed toward the person who won].

But then again, since Shambles is so serious about his convoluted concerns, he probably had no thought about playing that game.

What a shame.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 06:48 AM

Shables says: "most of the abusive personal attacks, pissing and moaning are currently coming from the volunteer fellow posters that are known to us ".

Wrong, Roger! Blatantly, obviously and hypocritically wrong. For example, most of the moaning in this thread has come from your not-as-good-as-you'd-have-us-think-self. And most of the abusive personal attacks too, though couched in defensive-aggressive terms. Being told to shut up is not an abusive personal attack; inferring that someone is a liar, is!

I also have made some abusive remarks towards you, which you gladly accepted - at least you did not even try to defend yourself against my accusations. So here goes another one:

You are a hypocritical sod and a megalomaniac who seeks to improve his own standing by attacking the volunteer organisers of this forum. You are malicious and vindictive, unable to stomach perceived slights from 4 years ago. You are also a crashing bore, inarticulate but voluminous and repetitious in your writings.

There. I put it in bold in case you missed that, so now you can get my details from the "members" section, and sue me for libel.

Oh yes - you 'll do that after you PM Max, of course. Like, never.

Because those are open and fair battles you know you cannot win, you COWARD.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 06:59 AM

Joe Offer says.

Shambles says:
I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run.

MMario says.

Roger - you must consider context.

What was said in full was -

Kendall - It is indeed long been clear that this site belongs to Max and I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run.

However this is a part of Max's website that he has very generously set aside for invited contributions from the public and called the Mudcat Discussion Forum.

Joe Offer also says.

Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos.

My view is that it is partly this unrealistic fear of our forum being 'taken over' has led to the current situation where 'combat and chaos' is now the norm. It must be clear now to many on our forum - that the main aim of those whose impossible wish is to control every aspect of the postings of others - is not any any cost - to lose that control - whatever 'combat and chaos' may be the result. But when combat is the only tactic inconsitently used by our anonymous volunteer fellow posters - chaos is the only possible result

Currently (known and possibly unknown) representitives of the site's owner now think it acceptable to make abusive personal attacks and name-call upon those who Max has invited to contribute - simply because their views are different - when their role is supposedly to protect our forum from abusive personal attacks and name-calling.

Who protects us all from abusive personal attacks when they emanate from those who volunteer to protect us?

Kendall - why would making known the names of the currently unknown volunteer fellow posters thought to be a problem? Why is there this assumption of combat? If Max's so-called representitives were not seen to initiate combat - and fire the first shots at the contributions of their fellow posters. By imposing their persoanal judgement upon their words at will - without the originator's knowledge or permission - there is a very good chance that peace may eventually break-out on our forum.

But that would not do would it? For then there would be no need or justification to have any anonymous or known volunteers to impose their judgement upon the words of fellow posters in order to supposedly protect fellow posters. And there would be a grave danger that certain of this number may feel they will lose control and have to resort once again to shaping our forum only by their contributions.   

I am tired of the 'combat and chaos' that this gang of anonomous volunteer fellow posters now increasing impose. Whilst presenting the option to fellow posters to stop posting to our forum - if they do not like what this gang have turned our forum into by imposing and encouraging all these needless personal judgements.

I am also tired of the 'combat and chaos' that this anonymous gang clearly have a vested interest in encouraging. If you are tired of reading me (and others saying things this) then please do what you can to help improve the current situation - or just simply ignore it.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 07:07 AM

Yada-yada-yada, blah, blah, blah, bollocks.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: mooman
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 07:33 AM

Haven't jumped into this thread before and probably won't again though I've read the whole thing.

I think it's a credit to Max and the Mudcat that this type of exchange can take place in open discussion without censure.

I do, however, regret the hint of rudeness that has crept into the thread. If we must have the debate let's maintain some decorum and respect. Folks wouldn't say some of the things they say here to the person sitting next to them in a bar for fear of a punch on the nose, so no need for it here either.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 07:39 AM

The way you rip into Joe, I can't blame the Clones for wanting annonimity.

I do not agree with Joe's views and he does not agree with mine. If we were posting equally - that would be fine.

Even though we are not now posting as equals and he (and anonymous others) has shown he has the power to and is more than willing to impose his words upon mine - I do not make abusive personal attacks upon him - call him names and encourage others to do this or respond in kind to those Joe Offer makes on me.

I do not do this to the known volunteer fellow posters (and their supporters) who also make similar public personal attacks and use foul language to do it - so why would making known to our forum - the names of our anonymous volunteer fellow posters place them at any more risk from me (or anyone else)?

But the issue of volunteer fellow posters who may wish to remain anonymous is rather crucial to the refusal by Joe Offer - of my rather simple request - that any proposed change to a poster's words - be first made in request to the thread's originator. For it is a fact that there is no way that an anonymous fellow volunteer could send a PM to a poster (who did use their name) - and remain anonymous.

I suggest the protection of this annonimity - rather than all the other attempted jusifications - is why this simple request is rejected - out of hand - by my volunteer fellow poster.

These anonymous ones do not need your sympathy or any protection from me - for they have the power not only to 'rip into us' but to impose their judgement upon our words - as and when they wish.

Always assuming of course - Le Scaramouche - that you are one of these anonymous ones?

It is also a fact that those who would impose their words upon an orginator's thread title because they may judge the originator has not made it clear or judge it wanting in some way - are not quite so limited. As the lenghth of title they can impose can be longer - as the volunteer fellow poster will be able to use more characters than are available to the originator. A fact that I think makes imposing this judgement even more needlessly unfair and contentious.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 07:41 AM

Mooman, I can only speak for myself, of course. I am known as a mild-mannered person, but if it was Shambles sitting next to me in the bar, I would say the same things to him. He has earned it, mainly through his covert malice. And he is welcome to punch me on the nose, when I do, as he is welcome to sue me for libel.

With Shambles, I now use language that I didn't even use with Martin Gibson. What can I say - Roger brings out the worst in me; he tests tolerance levels I didn't know that I had... I am not proud of it, but he has earned it.

Subject: RE: HI Max: What about Shambles requests?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 07:42 AM

I for one have no wish to have a say in how Max's site is run.

Except that.... clearly, as you go on to describe, you do have such a wish.

...the 'combat and chaos' that this gang of anonomous volunteer fellow posters now increasing impose.... the 'combat and chaos' that this anonymous gang clearly have a vested interest in encouraging....

Roger if you honestly believe your own crap, wouldn't this be an urgent enough concern to PM MAX immediately? And for how long have you had this concern, and done nothing but wage a war of words on Max's whole system of site management? Does it make sense to you that a concerrn of that magnitude would not be taken to the site owner at once?

This "gang" you refer to-- you know, they aren't anonymous to MAX. He can yank their chains any time he finds it necessary, individually or severally. He can fire their supervisors. He can handle it however he pleases.

I guess your own internal bullshit detector keeps you from taking this "concern" to Max in the fashion prescribed. I don't think, deep down, you DO believe your own crap about this. I think your arguments, "evidence," and opinions lack credibility even to yourself.

~Susan