BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: GUEST,SharonA at the library
Date: 21 Jul 01 - 04:49 PM

Sorry about the GUEST prefix, and I'm sorry I haven't been able to respond to anyone who's addressed me in this thread recently: my computer's been off-line since mid-morning Thursday; today's the first chance I've had to read any threads since then. So this post is going to be long...sorry again.

First of all, Joe, thank you very sincerely for removing your 16-Jul-01 post from the FAQ. Please do continue to let your opinions be known in the Forum. They are interesting to read, and apparently they sometimes spark lively discussion!


To Wolfgang: I'm pleased to see that you are reading my posts in various threads. I do wish, however, that you would read them more carefully before commenting on them. You wrote in the other "Dear Joe" thread: "...As for how easy it is to construct inconsistencies in argumnetation, I'll do it with you for instance. You wrote 'Please, Joe, don't prohibit us from asking for good thoughts or expressing our support. If you make it a hard-and-fast rule that we need to do so through private messages only, then please say so in the FAQ with a blueclickey reference to some starting points to do so, for the benefit of GUESTs and new members who won't know better.' Hasn't he done that and you're still not contented?"

No, Wolfgang, Joe had NOT made a hard-and-fast rule in his 16-Jul-01 post to the FAQ; he had made it very clear that he was expressing his opinion and suggesting guidelines, and I made it very clear in my comments about his post that I was aware that it did not contain hard-and-fast rules. So I don't see your point in pulling that quote of mine. (By the way, I AM contented that Joe's post is off the FAQ, and happy that it still lives on the "Dear Joe" thread where people can read it and take his suggestions under consideration. If, with Max's blessing, Joe HAD made some rules for posting to the Forum, I would follow them.)

Wolfgang, you also say, "...Your accusation of [Joe]turning the FAQ into a private platform and deleting what he doesn't like is mean and wrong." I admit that I may have gone too far with that comment. Joe, I apologize.


To Jim Dixon: Thanks for your compliment about my being articulate. I are reel emmbarsed cuz yew thanks i kin takk gud.

In response to the points you raise: *deep breath* (1)I suppose that all, or at least most, people want freedom & responsibility (although dictators and other nasties across the world don't seem to want it for other people, just themselves). I was trying to say that the FAQ/Newcomer's Guide should be consistent, not that Joe himself should be. (2) Yep, he ascribed the "civil anarchy" policy to Max, the "Ultimate Authority" and the man who runs Mudcat. I was saying that the FAQ should state Max's policy, not Joe's opinion about it. (3) No, the Newcomer's Guide is not scripture or law... but Joe's comment seemed to me to be too strong for a "guide". (4) I certainly had no intention of treating Joe's word as law, but I think Max's policy should be treated as policy. ("screwed"? C'mon, play nice!) (5) Yes, actually, a consistent set of rules and/or guidelines WOULD make me happy and I'd stick to 'em; see my comment to Wolfgang in this post. (6) Opinions on the "right" amount of BS in the Forum vary, and I have no suggestions or even desire to reduce it; I just don't think the FAQ is the place for BS. Again, thanks to Joe for removing it. (7) I was afraid of possible future abridgement of that freedom. I've lived my whole life in the Philadelphia PA area, "The Cradle of Liberty", where I'm constantly reminded of people who spoke out and fought and died for the sake of "unalienable rights" like freedom of speech, so I dearly want to protect those rights. (8) 'Scuse me? The threads addressed to Joe are focusing too much on Joe??? *G* I understand what you're saying, so if you want to see a thread that focuses on the issue itself... in the immortal words of Steve from Blue's Clues, "You know what to do!"


Whew! Enuff arreddy! I'm DONE with talking about this whole subject (though if someone says something else to fire me up, I may come back to it). I'm off to check out the latest SONG CHALLENGE! See ya!

SharonA

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Jul 01 - 08:01 AM

I didn't have the intention to post here anymore (this thread, I mean) when I came back this morning. The substance of what I could have said is known to most and has been said beautifully by others. It is a good time to stop adding to that.

But the last two posts have 'forced' me to come out and say a heartfelt 'thank you'.

As I am posting, Alex, you've been barking up an empty tree (LOL). One minute after my last post I was gone. I've been at home listening to 'The body blow' radio ballad and drinking a white Chardonnay from Australia. Much more relaxing than reading and contributing here.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Jul 01 - 01:29 AM

I second, third and fourth the comments about Wolfgang. He and I have had mighty disagreements, but they are always on substantive issues and he usually backs his arguments up with logic and facts. I will read threads I am not particulary interested if I see he has posted.

Joe, you have character and honor. Both are traits that are all too often overlooked. I know you don't necessarily agree with all that was said, but you handled yourself with grace and class. Thanks for all you do.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: Sourdough
Date: 20 Jul 01 - 01:03 AM

Since someone brought up the topic -

Wolfgang- I know from your posts that you don't need any particular support but for those people who have the stomach to follow this thread and may not be familair with Wolfgang and his messages, ew writes carefully crafted, substantive pieces that often bring real substance into discussions on Mudcat. You could do worse than to click on "Wolfgang" on one of his messages and bring up a list of his contributions. If you did and you clicked on them at random, you would find some solid and interesting information.

There are names I have come to recognize as people who write when they have something to say. I look forward to seeing Wolfgang's name in a listing of messages. ALmost always it means that he will be adding clarity and information to the discussion.

So, this thread turns out to be a good placefor me to say something I should have said a long time ago, Thank you, Wolfgang.

Sourdough

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 09:30 PM

LOL....Yeah Jim, I'm a lot more well known for the "other" air.......although there is a certain "authority" about it, so to speak..............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 09:27 PM

Wow! This thread grew a lot when I wasn't looking. I composed the following based on what I had read up until about 11 a.m. today, when SharonA seemed to be Joe's most articulate critic.

SharonA: In trying to show that Joe has been inconsistent, you are barking up the wrong tree. Here's why:

(1) If different remarks by Joe seem inconsistent, it seems to me only a matter of emphasis, not substance. I don't see that Joe has changed his opinion in any substantial way. Sure, he wants both freedom and responsibility at the same time. Don't we all? If he speaks in favor of freedom at one time and responsibility at another, naturally he will use different rhetoric, different examples, and so on. Is that being inconsistent? Not in any way that bothers me.

(2) I don't interpret his remark about "civil anarchy" as giving his blessing to anarchy. He specifically ascribes that policy to "Max, Dick, and Susan," not to himself. If you read between the lines, you COULD interpret this as implying that if HE owned Mudcat, he would MAKE SOME RULES. (And so would I.) Furthermore, when he says, "follow their example," I think he meant to emphasize the "civil" part, not the "anarchy" part. I don't think Joe ever wanted to encourage people to be more anarchic. If he had, he certainly wouldn't have cited Max, Dick, and Susan as examples to be followed!

(3) If Joe has been inconsistent, so what? However well thought out, his writings are only his opinion (as he himself clearly states), so what does it matter if his current opinions seem inconsistent with his earlier ones? This is not scripture or even law, to be analyzed in a legalistic way. Cut the guy a little slack, for Pete's sake! Joe's remarks are clearly intended to INSPIRE you, not to lay down the law. As with any inspirational rhetoric, take what benefit you can get from it, and ignore the rest. If you fail to get ANYTHING from it, that's your loss.

(4) If you want to treat Joe's words as law, consider this: In law, there is the principle that, if two laws or two court decisions in the same jurisdiction seem to contradict each other, the more recent one takes precedence. This rule is used to resolve conflict all the time. So from a legal point of view, you're screwed.

(5) Suppose Joe decides to make his writings consistent by revising his earlier ones to make them agree with his later ones. Will that make you happy? I don't think so. Don't waste your breath demanding consistency if consistency isn't what you really want.

(6) Criticizing Joe for mentioning his car is just plain silly. Obviously you are attacking what you consider to be Joe's most vulnerable points, while ignoring his strongest point, which is that Mudcat contains WAY too much BS. Unless you can propose a better way to reduce the amount of BS on Mudcat, I don't think anyone will take you seriously.

(7) What exactly are you afraid of? That someone might read Joe's FAQ and actually be persuaded to exercise some self-restraint? If they do, how will that hurt you? You know perfectly well that you will still have the freedom (for better or worse) to ignore his advice and post anything you damn please. And so will everybody else. In fact, experience show that people tend to follow the examples they see more than the rules they read (or don't read).

(8) This whole discussion is focusing WAY too much on Joe. Several people have indicated that they agree with Joe, yet they are being mostly ignored. And some would even support more radical solutions than Joe proposes. (I'm one of them.)

Spaw: Your offer to help Joe write better FAQs may be well intentioned, but I don't think it will solve the problem. Suppose you and he work together to produce a new FAQ. Then suppose *I* don't like it. Will you then accept me into a committee to work on yet a third version? How about if somebody after me objects to the third version? When will it end?

Also, SharonA's objections (if they are to be taken seriously) are mainly about (1) inconsistency and (2) the "air of authority" that Joe supposedly has. Spaw, how are you going to make sure that the new FAQs are consistent with everything YOU have ever said about Mudcat? How are YOU going to avoid having an "air of authority?" Or are inconsistency and an air of authority objectionable only when they belong to someone who disagrees with Sharon?

(Actually, I'm not worried about Spaw's air of authority. The other air he produces is reputed to be more lethal.)

SDShad: When I proposed taking Mudcat underground, I was being facetious. But it does express my longing for an easy way out of this mess (which I don't think we'll ever find).

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 07:25 PM

Well done Joe.....I wouldn't post except I criticized you here and I now applaud you here.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 07:23 PM

Et tu, Noreen?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: Noreen
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 07:20 PM

Give it a rest, hey, Alex? Please?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 06:33 PM

Bully for Joe! I think you made the right move, and I applaud you.

Alex

PS Wolfgang, I feel better now. Will you answer my questions? And while you're at it, will you teach me to be superior to all other human beings, like you are?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 06:12 PM

I copied the last message I posted in the previous "Dear Joe Offer" thread, and pasted it into the FAQ so maybe people would take the time to read it outside the current controversy. I intended to leave it there temporarily - I delete all the messages posted in the bottom part of the FAQ. I asked people to respond in this thread because I did not want to continue the controversy in the FAQ; and I did not want to have to delete responses, if there were any. The first five messages in the FAQ are more-or-less permanent, although I revise them almost every week. The other messages are for temporary comments, questions, and suggestions.
In that message, I didn't ask for an end to the "BS" - all I asked is that people think twice before starting threads and try to pick thread topics that are of general interest. I said I thought there was nothing wrong with personal concerns or requests for prayer/healing within a thread, but perhaps we shouldn't devote an entire thread to such a topic unless it's something quite significant that's happening to a regular Mudcatter. I also asked that people stop posting to the flame threads, and let them die. A couple of people told me privately that although my suggestions had validity, it might not be a good idea to post the message in the FAQ. I took their advice and deleted the message from the FAQ.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: flattop
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 02:36 PM

Still haven't found time to read the FAQ - even with Joe's latest Offerings.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: flattop
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 02:35 PM

I don't know about Joe Offer but Joe On'er has a sign in front of his cabin that says, 'Keep off the Dog.'

What ever happened to the kat-dog? Did the prayers work?

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 02:05 PM

Oh God.

So the lot of you who thought you might be losing the argument weren't satisfied flaming your member "opponents."

So now you're going to start another round of "Let's Out The Anonymous Guest" game?

Sorry, not interested.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: nutty
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 01:58 PM

Remember this thread is an ofshoot of the prayer threads where "GUEST" fuelled a great amount of contraversy but go ahead ---- PLAY YOUR SILLY GAMES ---- You know far too much about this to be totally innocent, and if you do have a name , why not use it??????.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 01:35 PM

Ah. Since a relatively small number of posts were posted by guests, none of them can be feuling the controversy? I fail to see the logic here.

alex

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 01:34 PM

Nutty,

I find it quite curious that it is your perception guests might be fueling the controversy here.

So, after a quick count of the number of posts to Parts I & II, I note that out of 203 messages, 15 were posted by guests.

Sorry to disappoint you.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled mudslinging...

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 01:33 PM

I had a thang once.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: Kim C
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 01:31 PM

In the ocean of human events, isn't there some ebb and flow? Sometimes people want to talk about music, sometimes they don't. The pendulum goes back and forth. No need to contemplate it; it just IS. It ain't nothin but a thang.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: nutty
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 01:25 PM

I wondered when you would show up again GUEST ---

Are things starting to quieten down?? Do they need stirring up again?? Do you have another hard-working volunteer to get at?? Thank you but no thank you . GO AND CAUSE TROUBLE SOMEWHERE ELSE

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 01:24 PM

I dunno, McGrath. It seems a little too convenient that only people who have done as much for Mudcat as Joe Offer should be allowed to abuse their position and post their personal opinions to the FAQ thread; now asking that the same thing be done for this thread as well is, methinks, asking too much.

alex

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 01:21 PM

The other point I was making was, reading right through those 282 posts carefully several times would take quite along time. And by the time people had finished they might have something better to do than this squabbling.

Also that some pointless threads are very hard to kill. (Since that was what the thread I linked to was about in case people didn't manage to load it. They didn't miss much of substance. But at least it was a lot better tempered than this one and it's Part 1.

And by writing this I have refreshed the thing once again.

A serious suggestion - the only people who should add to it further should be people who have done as much for the Mudcat as Joe Offer.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 01:21 PM

Sorry, Wolfgang, I've really got a bad attitude now due to some jerkoff in another thread making stupid noises about Prozac. You may need to wait again. Not that I had a bad attitude before your condescending and patronizing post, or even afterwards. But now I do.

alex

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 01:18 PM

And I meant to add--I think Joe Offer's assessment of the group dynamics in Mudcat is dead on, and should be incorporated into the FAQ guidelines.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 01:14 PM

This entire sorry thread says to me that the FAQ isn't fulfilling it's purpose here as a guideline (not hard and fast rules, but guidelines), and that there is deep distrust of this person who has been "left in charge" here by the site owners.

I stated earlier in the thread that I didn't think the FAQ was very good.

It needs extensive editing (and by that, I agree with whomever it was that pointed out it needs to be more organized). It needs to get all the chatty thread shit out, and the guidelines, how-to info, etc. clearly laid out.

And FWIW, I think the site owners need to reign in this particular person who seems to be having some trouble with appropriate use of his authority vis a vis his membership status as "one of the gang."

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: IanC
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 01:10 PM

I think the point Kevin was making is that we seem to end up doing the same thing at round about EXACTLY the same time each year. Kinda silly season. I'm off to sort out some more music. Anyone stupid enough to keep on with this can stay.

Cheers!
Ian

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 01:10 PM

Hey Wolfgang! My attitude is better now! Will you condescend to answer my question?

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 01:07 PM

Okay, McGrath, I've read the whole thing (sheesh!). Now what?

alex

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 12:21 PM

Do you know how many "let's cut the BS and get back to music" threads we've had?

If people don't like BS they aren't required to read it. If they want more music threads they are perfectly welcome to start more.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 12:13 PM

I suggest that before anyone adds another post to this thread they click on this thread, and read it right through. Several times.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: Burke
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 12:12 PM

Umm so where in this place does a guy or gal who doesn't approve of opening up threads for non music topics state his or her opinion?

This thread is a good place of a new thread with a title something like: BS: Please, folks, lets cut the BS and get on with music.

Then we can complain about another BS thread. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 12:09 PM

I don't think you are spaw. Let's try again.

Max owns this forum and sets the rules here. If he set the guidelines and the ideas epressed here were included in the guidelines, I would be quite happy (delighted in fact to see the addition).

When anyone else puts suggestions as to what should or shouldn't be posted into the FAQ (unless opposing views are also allowed), like it or not, the fact is we have a member attempting to steer the forum thier way which is wrong regardless of whether I happen to agree with the suggestion or not.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: sophocleese
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 12:08 PM

sorry john, posted at the same time. I'm off to hang up my laundry now and then get back to learning new songs.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: sophocleese
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 12:08 PM

Umm so where in this place does a guy or gal who doesn't approve of opening up threads for non music topics state his or her opinion? This whole thread started because someone objected to his stating his opinion in one thread. Now you're objecting to him stating his opinion in a another form of thread. Joe's opinion is Joe's opinion, he is allowed to state it. I like Jim Dixon's pointing out of the irony of hoping for divine approval of anarchy. Sort of like responding to trolls and then howling because they keep coming back.

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 12:05 PM

I really can't believe you lot are still going om about this! GO AND LISTEN TO SOME NICE MUSIC.john

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 12:03 PM

Made the same point Mick........I think we're dragging a dead horse to the empty pond.............Need to hear a word from Joe now. I'll see you all this evening when I get back......Hope we hear something.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 11:59 AM

Anna, that was a very good post. I think you nailed an awful lot of what I was trying to say about Joe's post. It is not the idea he is trying to convey, it is the methodology he uses. If he were to clean that post up a bit, it would serve as a very good guideline.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: annamill
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 11:52 AM

I just went and read the FAQ, and Joe asks people to respond here, so...

I'm afraid I agree with Joe. I haven't been in here very much because I haven't found the threads as interesting as they used to be. Kat, I think you're a wonderful person, but just maybe, Mudcat wasn't the place to ask for help because your sisters dog was missing. When I read that I just shook my head and tried to find a thread that held my interest. (Please, I'm not picking on Kat; this was just a very good example of this problem). I haven't added a lot of music info here, but I enjoyed learning about it. There is just not enough good stuff anymore.

Things have happened to me, but I didn't feel this was the place to air them. I come here to enjoy good conversation, or fun conversation, but it's been rare lately.

I don't know how I feel about Joe putting this idea into the FAQ. Somehow it doesn't feel right because FAQ shouldn't be the place for someones personal opinion, but I agree with the concept and feel it should somehow be stated.

My $.02.

Love, Annamill

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 11:46 AM

What mood? Are you saying you can read my emotions from 10,000 miles away?

Hoooooo, boy.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 11:45 AM

Not as along as you are in that mood, Alex, that would be completely pointless.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 11:45 AM

Susan, if you need something to do, hop out of this thread, and email MMario, and he'll give you a list of songs without MIDI files. There's also the permathread(tm) about unanswered requests.

alex

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 11:43 AM

Wolfgang said:

I strongly object to your use of the word 'contradictory' for Joe has not written anything remotely similar to that.

True. Nor has he said he would delete posts agreeing with his, nor has he said he would delete posts with green words. But these all follow from what he DID say, viz., that he would delete posts discussing his.

You're picking nits. Answer my question.

alex

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: wysiwyg
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 11:41 AM

Cross posted with your link to Part Two, Alex, so I repeat my post from Part One--

It's been a long time since I "preached" here and ya know, I think I will this time.

There is something important I think has gotten lost here. I think we need to remember that Joe Offer (and everyone else around here) actually thinks and rethinks things from time to time.

Maybe some of us do that faster than others... but no one has a right to tell anyone else how fast to do it or in what direction. And the pressure to do so is not actually helpful, although venting may make the venter feel better for a short while.

What Joe posted in the FAQ was the best he could come up with at that moment to address something that was important to him. I would appreciate very much if everyone could please chill out a little bit and let things percolate a little bit. And I would strongly suggest that drawing Max into the fray would probably not be at the top of Max's list of important things right about now.

How about Tracing this thread onto your personal page and leting it just sit there for a couple of weeks-- while putting attention on some of the more gracious aspects of Mudcat for a time? (Music?) This debate will still be here to pick up again at any time-- have no fear of that! *G*

I speak purely for my own selfish self in this. I have a brand new fast computer and a cable modem and I can FINALLY hear all the Mudcat Radio, PalTalk, and online sound files I have lacked since November. I'd rather have a couple of you guys in that with me!

And I can help search up lyrics now too! So geeze! Wouldja gimme sumpin to DO!?!?!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 11:35 AM

Because the original was getting ungainly, and nobody seems willing to stop the discussion. Just because a discussion is unfortunate doesn't mean it should be allowed to create a thread that people with limited computer resources can't load. I was thinking about them. (honest!)

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 11:33 AM

Why?????

Subject: Dear Joe Offer, part 2
From: mousethief
Date: 19 Jul 01 - 11:28 AM

Continuation of THIS unfortunate thread.

Alex