 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Is closing threads censorship?
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: Is closing threads censorship? |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 10 May 06 - 08:21 PM In the event you wish another option, LH, here's an idea . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Little Hawk Date: 10 May 06 - 08:26 PM Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!! That is the funniest damn picture of a dachshund I've ever seen, and it looks like him too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Little Hawk Date: 10 May 06 - 08:53 PM Check this one out... dachshund earns his keep |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Peace Date: 10 May 06 - 09:06 PM Dachshund after spring rain . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 06 - 01:31 AM If someone doesn't close this f*cking thread, I swear I will shoot my cute little weiner dog! Have you shot it yet? If it bothers you so - why open it and why post only to refresh this thread? Why don't you ask the originator of this thread to ask for it to be closed? Or ask Max? I suspect you will find them both bound and gagged in the same cellar. I am glad you're keeping this thread open, Martin--and I am glad that there are a few others as well who recognize that this is not about Shambles, and the questions we all have can not be dealt with by simply being dismissive of Shambles-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 11 May 06 - 06:06 AM Music posts by Guests to be reviewed(2) has now also been closed. |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 14 Jul 06 - 05:46 AM I consider that "my work here is done" in the classic B-movie phrase. Please now close his thread?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 14 Jul 06 - 06:05 AM Will all threads be closed on request when the thread's originator asks for this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: GUEST Date: 14 Jul 06 - 07:23 AM You may find that by placing your enquiry here Help Section it will allow it to be seen by the Mudcat Administration as I doubt that this is a question Visitors to the Mudcat can answer for you. Alternatively you may want to address your question directly to the Site Owner. You can do this quite easily through the Help Section also. Hope this information is of use to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 14 Jul 06 - 09:42 AM When the object is to ask a question - there are many way of of obtaining some form of answer. If the object is to start a thread and encourage a discussion on a subject - the threads are the correct place for this. What is now happening, is that having started a discussion in a thread - the originator is now encouraged to think that having started the thread and the discussion - they have some right to also close the discussion in this thread when they wish, by asking and expecting the thread to be closed. Presumambly no one else who may have contributed does have a say and anyone who may haved wished to contribute to that discussion will not be able to. Perhaps once started - all threads can remain open? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: The Shambles Date: 14 Jul 06 - 09:48 AM Mudcat's stated goals fRoots message board – do you post? fRoots message board |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is closing threads censorship? From: Bill D Date: 14 Jul 06 - 11:14 AM at it again, I see |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: BB Date: 14 Jul 06 - 02:38 PM Shambles, why are you asking to close this thread? It's more often than not you that posts to it! And it does help to keep the rest of us up to date with what's going on re licencing. Barbara
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 14 Jul 06 - 03:00 PM I have been struggling for some time to keep this issue and this particular thread on our forum. For your information- Joe Offer has already closed this thread once. This was fairly recently when another poster started another on a similar subject. Joe decided (without making any contact) that there can only ever be one thread on one subject and despite all the information contained on this one - decided to close this one but to keep the new one open. I did manage to get him to change his mind then, but I am very weary of fighting with him over this issue. And trying to prevent him from closing, moving or editing any thread I start or contribute to. He has had personal issues with me for some time and is unable to separate these from the various issues at stake here and his role as a 'moderator'. I have no real desire to see this (or any other) thread closed and was mainly trying to bring attention to this situation. http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=3199&messages=9
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 15 Jul 06 - 03:04 AM Nothing personal - that's just the way it is. Sadly it may be the way it is - but I consider that the personal likes and dislikes of any poster by any 'fellow poster/moderator' should not be a factor in important issues like this. Assumptions about any poster's possible motivation are not matters for 'moderators' to publicly speculate and 'gossip' about in order to provide justification and cover for so many editing actions that are clearly personally motivated. I will post Joe Offer's side of the story for you to judge..... Subject: (thread title change complaint) From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 10 Aug 05 - 01:19 PM Well, I suppose it depends on what you think of the Forum Menu. Shambles believes in a right to free speech - and I think most of us do. He thinks that the Forum Menu is a vehicle for self-expression and that the right of free speech should extend to the Forum Menu, and I think the Forum Menu is merely an index. Shambles is a pioneer here, because he was one of the very first to attempt to use the Forum Menu as a platform for expression. When he started his PEL campaign in 2001, he worked hard to ensure that several PEL threads were visible on the Forum Menu at any given time. He'd refresh several PEL threads, all with the same lengthy message, to keep his PEL campaign in the people's eye. He even started threads that had the sole purpose of directing people to other PEL threads. He worked hard to fight for "turf" on the Forum Menu, making sure his PEL campaign stood out above all other topics of discussion. His PEL campaign was a very worthy cause, but his technique got to be too much. He was flooding the Forum with words, crowding out others who weren't so wordy. He often titled threads with deceptive titles like the ones you find in virus and advertising e-mails - the ones that try to trick you into opening them. So, a number of things were done to hold Shambles back a bit, since he didn't seem to be able to control himself. His PEL threads were given PEL tags, and they were crosslinked so he wouldn't need to keep repeating things that people could easily find in other threads. So, yes, many of the Shambles threads were retitled - they had a PEL tag added to them. Some (but not most) of the lengthy duplicate messages he posted were deleted - but one copy of each message was always left intact, and only the duplicates were deleted. Shambles went overboard, and kept on going overboard for months. Finally, he was subjected to a few controls - although not one of his words was deleted unless it was a duplicate of another statement he posted. So,Shambles has been having a tantrum since 2001. And as he went overboard on the PEL campaign and actually served to make his issue look ridiculous by the outrageous quantity and exaggeration of his remarks, he also does the same with his campaign against the editing work done at Mudcat. Gee, he even compares me to Hitler, and that's SO unfair. I have much nicer facial hair. So, that's the story.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: BB Date: 15 Jul 06 - 01:50 PM OK, Shambles, from what you have posted of Joe's words, his viewpoint doesn't sound unreasonable. I too find it somehat annoying to find the same posts from you in different threads. This thread seems to be all that is necessary to keep people up-to-date with what's happening, and is a convenient thread to come back to when needing to find something that has been posted about the Premises Licence and how it affects live music. If items posted about it go in different threads, it is harder to find them, because one can't remember to which thread a particular thing was posted. Let's do as Joe suggest and keep it to just this one. But please keep posting information! Barbara |
|
Subject: RE: Affected by The Licensing Act 2003 From: The Shambles Date: 16 Jul 06 - 02:20 PM OK, Shambles, from what you have posted of Joe's words, his viewpoint doesn't sound unreasonable. Barbara. I did say that it was Joe' side of the story - so perhaps it is hardly surprising that you may find that his words of explanation sound reasonable.....The truth is perhaps not quite this. Do you consider that it was also reasonable for him to close this thread for the reasons and in the manner he did? My view has always been that this issue is about trying to remove petty-fogging restrictions and is a pefectly suitable issue for our forum, so all our other diferences and minor irritations should be really secondary to this..... I regret that trying keep people informed and discuss this issue on out forum has itself been subject to many petty-fogging restrictions and judgements and that the persoanal differences between Joe Offer and myself have gotten in the way. Hopefully they will not do so in the future. One way to do this is to try and ensure that all threads remain open.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Gospel music is Gaelic? UK TV 21 Mar 05 From: The Shambles Date: 18 Jul 06 - 06:16 AM Azizi I was making a point, and for what it is worth - you have my full support for carrying on this interesting discussion here - for I know you mean no harm in continuing this thread when you posted the following. I'm sorry, Shambles for going off topic so much in this thread. The topic of Black Gospel music is very important to me, and I admit to getting swept away in the history of that topic more than in your specific question of the Gaelic roots of that music form. I very much recognize that this general discussion is far afield from the specific topic of gospel music in gaelic. If this thread remains open, I'll henceforth limit any comments I make to that specific topic. Perhaps there is another thread on Black Gospel Music. If no such thread exist yet-and if someone wants to start one, I'll probably join in the discussion. I think I've started enough threads for a while... Again, sorry. I meant no harm. But you will be able to confirm that the post you are quite obviously replying to in this thread - has now been deleted from it? Other posts of mine have recently been deleted from other threads but in these cases the evidence for this censorship has been deleted along with these posts. Something which appears to have also happened to another poster in another thread - despite Joe Offer's assurance that such things do not happen. Perhaps you will be so kind as to confirm this? Subject: RE: BS: Religion=good folk doing bad things? From: The Shambles - PM Date: 18 Jul 06 - 06:01 AM Hi, Slag - I can't find any evidence that any of your posts have been deleted or edited. We usually delete only personal attacks, racism, and spam. -Joe Offer- You will also find no evidence that recent posts of mine have been deleted and from more than one thread - because the evidence has been deleted along with the posts. As none of these posts were personal attacks, racism or spam - perhaps they can be replaced? |
