MUDCAT VOW II

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: GeorgeH
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 06:19 AM

Yes, I'm with Geoff on this. Personally, I applaud the sentiment, but am not happy with the detail.

As for the arguments about censorship (a totally bullshit claim, IMO) - well, we're all free to say whatever we like here.

One difficulty I have is that what I see as robust argument others see as abuse . . If ever I offend anyone unreasonably I'm only too pleased to try to make ammends, but I'm not prepared even to try to make sure I never give offence, and there are issues so major that I'm afraid I really cannot in all conscience concern myself with whether I cause offence. Or, but another way, not all offence is unjustified!

Cheers!

G.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 02:35 AM

This one always amazes me. THE VOW, is a joke, read the first thread and you will clearly see this...

It was a way of geting the common sense idea across that it was not flamers, that were the problem.

It was us.......who were doing the damage. And sadly continue to do so............

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: AliUK
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 08:47 PM

Taken but I will probably get amd enough to forget the vow.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 08:04 PM

Probably can't take the vow, but agree with the sentiment!
GtD

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: Gareth
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 06:54 PM

I make no appology for posting this again

The Flamers Game

Tune: One Morning In May, or God on Our Side

Come all ye mud catters, and list while I sing,
For the love of one's own ego is a terrible thing.
It banishes reason, to an anonymous guest name,
And it makes us all part of the flamers game.

My name is Guest, and I've just turned thirteen.
My home is on the internet, and where I was weaned
I learned all my life cruel micro soft's to blame,
So now I am part of the flamers game. .

This forum of ours has too long been half free.
Six threads lie under the Troll's tyranny.
But nobody really is greatly to blame
For playing his part in the flamers game. .

They told me how Mousethief was hit in his chair,
His wounds from in fighting all bloody and bare.
His fine words twisted, all battered and wane
They soon made me part of the flamers game. .

It's nearly two months since I first logged on,
To smite, and to fight, with parodied song.
For I read of our heroes, and wanted the same
To play out my part in the flamers game. .

And now as I lie here, my ego all holes
I think of those traitors who bargained in souls
And I wish that my posts had given the same
To those Quislings who played in the flamers game. .

Gareth – with appologies to Domnic Behan

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 06:03 PM

2nd Sharon's vow...(it'll allow me more time in my wood shop, too)

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: SharonA
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 04:57 PM

Shoot! Is it September already? Sorry... (I've just GOT to get around to flipping that wall calendar!)

I DO SO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THIS SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND ONE.

SharonA

P.S. – Susan, isn't there a song about that: "Daddy, What's a Flame?" ;^)

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 04:45 PM

Or September.

Of course one of the big problems was that no one could agree on what constituted a flame-- and that what people vowed would be impossible to remember once one's buttons had been pushed by what they thought wasn't a flame!

~S~

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: SharonA
Date: 06 Sep 01 - 04:41 PM

*refresh*

Here's the vow, from the original "MUDCAT VOW" thread:

I solemnly swear that I will make my very best efforts to always resist the temptation to respond, reply or in any way acknowledge the existence or effect of those who would insult, provoke or in any way, intentionally attempt to disrupt the positive nature of The Mudcat Forum.

I will make no excuse or exception to this rule for any circumstances.

I further request that if I should ever be seen to stray from this path, that a personal message be sent to me pointing out my fall into temptation? On receipt of this message I shall then immediately be liable to make a large financial contribution to Mudcat funds and have to listen to only the complete recorded works of the artist of the poster's choice, for one week. For that week my entire contribution to The Mudcat will be limited to hourly postings, saying nice things about Max.

I DO SO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THIS SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND ONE.

SharonA

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 00 - 08:54 AM

Just consider the words...it doesn't matter if they came from someone's pseudonym that you recognize, or anonymously.

"Let prudence direct you, temperance chasten you, fortitude support you, and justice be the guide in all your actions." -Anonymous. Would it change the meaning of the words if they could be attributed to someone like Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill?

Conversely: "...the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler. Are these words any less offensive because they can be attributed to a recognizable name?

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Jul 00 - 04:47 AM

Any changes Max may make will not solve the problem. For WE ARE the problem.

So many good folk have said this in so many different ways………. The answer to this problem is very simple but maybe the fact that it is SO simple is the reason why, it is has been so difficult to actually implement?

Possibly also the fact that the example set by some folk, being so desperate to display their quick wit, that they don't care who is feeding them the line? Or what the long term consequences of their actions may be for every contributor?

Please don't feed the animals………….. These animals bite.

If you do not feed the animals……………. They will not bite ANYONE and will go away.

With apologies to all non-human animals.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Jul 00 - 02:57 AM

Bob jnr

This is Max's site. I have pointed out that he has taken this measure in the past and that is his right.

If you do not accept that, then please take it up with him.

I am not a supporter of censorship'………... It is stretching a point indeed to read that thrust of this thread is a call for ANY censorship. The only thing that is being requested is to 'censor' (if you must use the word), one's self and to bring attention to the fact that the majority of posters are already doing just that.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: bob jr
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 10:36 PM

ah you can dress a donkey in fine robes and teach it to perform tricks and maybe even play a tune on the piano but at the end of the day its still a donkey and censorship is still censorship ,,,,,surely we have fought enough for free speach that we dont let idiots take it away from us with thier inane actions? isnt free expresion of ideas worth more? i dont know what ideals you stand for shambles but my family fought AGAINST fascists in the last war and i get the feeling sometimes they lost.......

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 03:39 PM

Ed said

If someone wishes to be abusive, it's not difficult to register as a new user, using any name at all - and invent an email address if so desired.

I can't see how a post from such an individual would be any more 'valid'

You are right. Validity though is not the really the issue. Accountability maybe is.

It may be small comfort, but if such a course of action was taken, it is possible for those affected, to reply personally. This can prevent public reactions, which is the main purpose for such postings in the first place and may restrict the worst excesses of it? If it does not, Max can then take further action, as he has done, (reluctantly), in the past.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 03:26 PM

Interesting that is the same "proxy" that was listed with the porno links which Joe Offer thankfully deleted.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 02:45 PM

Warning don't go through that link to the previous thread - probably unintentionally, it really screwed up my mudcat connection. My cookie crumbled away, and I had quite a lot of hassle getting away from those bloody banners.

So here is a link that won't do that

The Mudcat cookkie is a pretty harmless beast. You can get software which enables you to selectively allow cookies you feel safe with, while eliminating all the rest.

But it isn't GUESTS who identify themselevs that irritate me, and it isn't pseudonyms. I've no particular interest in who people are, over and above what they care to let us know (which is always interesting) - but with unadorned GUESTS there's no way of knowing whether this one is the same as that one, even in the same thread. It destroys the whole sense of conversation. It's graffiti. And though you can get interesting graffiti it's pretty rare - and anyway it's a different type of game.

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: Ed Pellow
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 02:40 PM

Mike,

I certainly didn't mean to upset you, but given that links need to be entered manually, I wondered why you used proxy.spaceproxy.com as a prefix to your link, rather than simply entering a www.mudcat.org filename.

Using the spaceproxy prefix on your link means that the link takes longer to load, and means that we have to load an advert for something that none of us want.

That's why I didn't like it - but no offence intended

Ed

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: GUEST,Mike
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 02:23 PM

"What I very much dislike about the post from the 'guest' who started this thread, is that the link to the old thread is routed through a different site - hence displaying a banner advert at the top."

Well thanks very much, Ed.
There can be a number of reasons for that also.

Am I guilty of something, here?
Would you care to tell this poor soul, who will never be cookied (many reasons for that also), what my crime is?

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: Ed Pellow
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 01:56 PM

If someone wishes to be abusive, it's not difficult to register as a new user, using any name at all - and invent an email address if so desired.

I can't see how a post from such an individual would be any more 'valid'

What I very much dislike about the post from the 'guest' who started this thread, is that the link to the old thread is routed through a different site - hence displaying a banner advert at the top.

I've always loved the fact that the mudcat is banner free, and hope that this isn't the start of something...

Ed

Subject: RE: MUDCAT VOW II
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 01:48 PM

I did not suggest that ALL posts from posters with the guest prefix be ignored and it is of course more complicated. I am more than happy for someone else to attempt to explain it clearly.

BUT

If you received conventional mail that is unsigned or phone calls from folk who do not identify themselves, for pure and varied reasons. You may very well not automatically ignore them? However you would probably be, sensibly wary? …..For that is what I am suggesting.

Max chose the word guest, after careful thought I am sure. For it does bring out in most of us, an almost automatic charitable reaction and one which we have quite a struggle to fight against, when the prefix is abused.

Subject: MUDCAT VOW II
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 00 - 01:22 PM

The other thread was getting a bit long, and, I think, a little confusing. I thought that by creating another, as is sometimes done, we could maybe re-create the spirit that Roger was was trying to get at when he created the first one:

http://proxy.spaceproxy.com/-_-http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=20003&messages=111#255149

A link to McGrath of Harlow's last post on MUDCAT VOW I

I hope you don't mind.
Now to answer McGrath's question, for myself, anyway.

I sometimes forget.

Mike Gardiner

---

/thread.cfm?threadid=20003 (click) (link fixed by Joe Offer)