 sj |
||
|
||
Thread Proliferation Control
|
|
|
Subject: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:51 AM There were two Iraq threads started today that just didn't need to be started, since there already were a number of Iraq threads running. The new threads didn't deal with a major change - they were ancillary to the ongoing discussions. With a little thought, the thread originators could have fit their information into the ongoing discussion. I think there's a general consensus that a very few people are starting a very large number of threads, and I think there is general annoyance with new threads started when there is already an ongoing discussion on a related topic. On music threads, we combine requests with previous threads as a matter of course. I've been wondering about the political and other BS threads, and I think maybe I'll go in the same direction. When Iraq threads get started that don't really bring up a new topic, I think I'll move them into a Misc Iraq thread, or to an existing Iraq discussion. I suppose some of the thread originators won't like it, but maybe it will help them learn to fit their comments into existing threads, instead of fragmenting the discussion so much. We have some fascinating people at Mudcat, people who have well-honed opinions on just about any subject you can think of. If they're interested in a subject, they will give a well-reasoned response that really gives you something to think about. The way things have been, a small number of people have flooded the 'Cat with a huge amount of repetitive information, and the well-reasoned messages get drowned in the flood. I really hate to delete messages unless they're clearly harmful, but I think maybe that a system of moving them may serve to focus the discussion. I think you'll note that the PEL people have settled down a bit. Maybe the Iraq folks will do the same. -Joe Offer- (copied over from the Help Forum [click]) |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: DougR Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:54 AM Makes sense to me Joe. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 27 Feb 03 - 02:03 AM Yes! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Wesley S Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:41 AM Thanks Joe. Undoubtedly though someone will cry out that their "freedom of speech" has been trampled upon. Keep up the good work anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:46 AM I'm all for it, Joe! When I skim down the threads, there are so many on Iraq, and the impending (seemingly) war, half the time my eyes start to glaze over, and I click on Mudchat (where interestingly, I haven't come across a single conversation about Iraq.) I think everyone has the right to express, re-express, slightly modify and enldlessly repeat their observations, but howz about one REAL BIG IRAQ THREAD? :-) Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: TIA Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:48 AM Excellent move. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Stilly River Sage Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:53 AM How about suggesting people lump the tidbits in a "Topical News--Thread Drift OK-Week/Month/Year" that is where odds and ends can be placed, instead of all new threads all the time? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:58 AM Overdue. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: mack/misophist Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:01 AM As I understand it, it's your job to keep things neat and tidy. You'r doing your job; what's to complain about? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: RichM Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:15 AM Good idea! Carry it further though: Forbid the messy notion of allowing uncontrolled new threads-- Every morning, or once a week,or whenever-- publish a pre-approved list of acceptable new topics. So that we (as member or guest) can only post to an existing OR pre-approved thread. And NO more threads containing the word Ir** ! Rich McCarthy I don't think I want to do that, Rich. One of the beauties of this place is its spontaneity, so I want to be careful not to exercise too much control |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: wysiwyg Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:21 AM My only concern is that the starting of these threads may be yet one more volley designed to troll Mudcat Central into increasing its control over the forum-- made necessary only by the slowness with which members realize a thread is a troll thread, and our collective inability to let these threads die. You see, although I agree with your idea, my concern is that it'll just amount to another extended "Look what Joe did" fracas. I KNOW you can take the heat-- but if it serves to make the thread originator(s) feel they have gotten attention and "won" a moral victory, it may serve only to encourage them further. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rick Fielding Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:22 AM You jes' do what you have to Joe! If I'd had "thread proliferation Control" in my life for the last 40 years, I'd a bin a lot better off! Rock |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:35 AM Rich, no way on the "Approved Topics List"........Anything is fair game. That idea is way too close to censorship. I have posted previously in the HELP forum on this and I'll repost it here. It would be a lot easier to keep up with the news on the PEL issue, a very important topic to many, or Iraq, or General News with fewer threads. I think it would be quite simple to start a "PEL News of the Day" and an "Iraq News of the Day" threads. Everything goes there. If the subject fits into another existing thread then post in it as well or transfer the post later.....Just stop the friggin' daily thread additions. Khandu mentioned Punch the Horse...We HAVE a "Who's playing where" Permathread don't we? Let's use it. A new addition to Iraq or PEL or just some General News tidbits can also be listed in the appropriate thread assuming there is one, but a "News" thread would be simple to keep up with. As an example, let's say someone posts a new thread. "Kim Howells Rips a Fart"....maybe that would best go under some other existing thread, but for now it becomes a post in the "PEL News" thread rather than a new thread of itself. If there can be found a thread it might best fit in like, "Kim Has Smelly U-Trou" than it can be transferred there later but everyone gets the news. Same with Iraq only moreso as not much of that stuff is future reference. Say at about 300 or so posts a new "News" thread is started. Only rarely can I see the need for a new Iraq thread. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: RichM Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:49 AM - My comments were meant as irony, Spaw. I guess I was unclear, because I am reluctant to be sarcastic! To state more clearly, I would say that I feel all topics should be allowed--by guests or members, unless they are personal attacks or insults to others in the forum. A nasty or contentious topic will run it's course and die a natural death. Rich |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Art Thieme Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:55 AM I'm all for it Joe. Anything that will pare down and streamline so that the idea (if not the reality) that the music threads are the main reason for Mudcat Cafe is wonderful. This will serve to make the music threads more obvious, and that is just great with me. As I've said before, I'm for censorship that will create a moderator for the Mudcat that tosses non-music topics into the grease trap. ART THIEME |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:56 AM Rick, if you'd had "Thread Proliferation Control" in your life, you wouldn't be the Rick we love so much. Your wife Heather wouldn't like you, either. I hope to be gentle in this system of control, but it will be a trial-and-error process. If a thread starts out with a well-reasoned expression of opinion that invited comment, I'm likely to leave it alone. If it starts with a link, a one-liner, or a cut/paste article, it's likely to be consolidated. If it's an answer to an existing thread, it's likely to be consolidated. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Feb 03 - 11:59 AM Geez, sorry Rich....as a sarcastic bastard myself, I should have realized!!! I wouldn't want to stop anyone from posting anything......but every thought on Iraq doesn't merit a new thread. A "News" thread free to drift would be fine and in the case of a continuing topic like Iraq or the PEL, much easier to keep up with. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:02 PM I am going to be a brat for a moment.:-) Just for the record, I posted this a while ago and was shouted down, sort of **bg**: Subject: RE: Cut-and-Paste Prohibitions From: katlaughing - PM Date: 19 Feb 03 - 06:50 PM Three cheers for you, Joe! Thanks. How about if we have a News of the day thread, a continous one which is a central location for all of the political/news stuff? The only exception being some momentuous happening such as Columbine or the Space Shuttle? Ha! kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rick Fielding Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:04 PM My problem is that no one KNOWS when I'm being sarcastic! C'mon...where the heck are the "OUTRAGED GUESTS"? I'm waiting for my Mudcat entertainment value. Do they only come out at night? Cheers One of Joe's willing sheep, ha ha! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:35 PM maybe if you changed it to "Ricktin Crisp" they'd notice ya more! **bg** |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:41 PM 1) Proliferation is too big a word for most outraged guests to understand quickly. 2) The sun never sets on the Mudcat Empire! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 27 Feb 03 - 12:55 PM Okay, Joe. I understand about redundant threads, particularly related to Iraq. Now please explain to me why one of the threads that was moved had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ! The thread that was entitled "Terror Alert Level: Purple Haze!" is most emphatically NOT about Iraq. It is about the people who were busted this past week for selling Marijuana smoking paraphenalia over the Internet! Did you even bother to look at the content of the post or did you just assume that you knew what the content was based on the thread title? GUEST who started the thread was making a joke when he chose the title for it. My wife was unable to get into a military housing complex the other day because of heightened security. She joked that since she was wearing a plaid jacket we must be at alert level "plaid". Same kind of joke. Get it? Personally, I feel that the folks getting busted for selling bongs is a topic worthy of discussion on this forum. Those items were sold to individuals who paid for them by credit card. Computers have been confiscated and The Justice Department now has the name and address of every person who ever made a transaction. You can bet your ass that there are some people waiting for a knock on the door right now. I believe you made a mistake and I respectfully request that you move that thread back to the main forum. Sincerely, Bruce W. LaWall |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Beccy Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:00 PM Go Joe!!!! Works for me. As an aside- wouldn't it be neat if someone invented "Sarcastic" font for the 'puter so that we could rely upon that to convey our biting remarks? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Don Firth Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:29 PM Excellent idea! One of the problems with multiple threads on Iraq (or multiple threads on any given subject) is that if you are interested in the topic, you wind up having to bounce from thread to thread to follow the discussion, and if you post on any of them, you practically have to keep a running log of which threads you've posted on. I am interested in the Iraq discussions and I do post to them, but it's a real hassle trying to keep track of what's where. Keeping it all on a single thread would really simplify things, and I don't see that anyone could have a reasonable objection to that. I think we should also consolidate the "Conspiracy du jour" threads. That stuff is getting ridiculous! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:51 PM You know, Bruce, you're right. I'm likely to make some mistakes. The "Purple Haze" thread should have gone under "miscellaneous useless horseshit." Your reponse was worthwhile, but the initial message didn't even give much of an idea what the thread should be about. The original message in the thread consisted of a single, barely-comprehensible sentence, and a link. That's enought to start a hundred-message chain of useless verbiage - but not enough to start a discussion. It took me more time to dispose of it, than it took the original poster to start it. I guess I'm asking people to think before they post messages, and especially before they start threads. I know this is a novel concept to some, but perhaps it IS possible. Another novel concept is that this is primarily a MUSIC forum. We welcome all discussion, but we have to exercise certain controls to ensure that the political stuff doesn't overwhelm the music. I'm trying to keep those controls as gentle as possible, but it's a difficult task. If you want to start a thread similar to "Purple Haze" and begin with a message that gives your own opinion of the issue, that's fine. It does take some time to start a worthwhile thread - I would think it should take at least ten minutes to type an initial message that has some actual thought in it. The initial message needn't be long, but it should be thoughtful enough to provoke discussion. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 27 Feb 03 - 01:59 PM That brings us back to the idea of Guests not being able to start any non-music thread and/or having to enter a consistent identifier next to the Guest moniker. |
|
Subject: Changing Subject Heading May Help From: katlaughing Date: 27 Feb 03 - 03:05 PM Another thing I think it is good to remind people of is they can change the Subject heading of their individual postings, so that it makes it easier to search for them,later, and also for people to scan threads. I think if we did this more often it would help a bunch, esp. in everything-plus-the-kitchen-sink threads such as the political ones. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: John MacKenzie Date: 27 Feb 03 - 03:12 PM I got the joke Rich; I mean it had to be a joke didn't it, after all it had a name attached to it. Usually remarks like that are headed GUEST. And they say that Americans don't do irony!! failte.....Giok |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Art Thieme Date: 27 Feb 03 - 05:07 PM Joe, I only advocate what I do (probably) because I know it doesn't have a snowbll's chance in a jalapeno patch of coming to pass. I've learned to enjoy the B.S. too and I can't advocate going back to only music-related stuff because precedents for B.S. have been firmly set at Mudcat now and it would hurt too many good people to take it away. I learned to like the BS like Dr. Strangelove learned to love the bomb. Still, this is a good idea. Limiting BS threads by de-fragmenting is a nice way to do it. Thanks for all you folks do. Art |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bobert Date: 27 Feb 03 - 05:19 PM Now I'll be the first to admit that I *might* have started some purdy dumb threads that weren't worth startin' and so, yeah, Joe took me aside and gave me a voucher good for one weeks worth of Betty Ford "Dumb Thread" counselin'. Now I usually ain't into vouchers but, what the heck, I did the time and Iz feeling much better now. But... ...those urges are still there. But, I'm doing what Betty told me to do: smoke, drink, beat the danged dog, etc so I should be able to get thru this one! However, I feel a *dumb one* comin'. Hey, Joe, can I get another voucher??? Please, depot agent... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Deckman Date: 27 Feb 03 - 05:21 PM Joe ... a couple of thoughts: First of all, thank YOU for all the time and effort, and other things that I know you put into MUDCAT. Even though I once (recently) started a "BS" thread about cigarettes, I hang out here for FOLK MUSIC. That's what is so important to me. So, following some others suggestions, I do like to idea of perhaps including, or starting, a daily thread titled "Garbage Disposal." I am clearly putting myself in agreement with Art. In my opinion, if it isn't about folk music, I do NOT want to read it here. CHEERS, Bob(deckman)Nelson |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 27 Feb 03 - 05:45 PM Joe has the patience of Job. If he didn't, in fact, I think I would have more fun and might even consider being a pain-in-the-butt guest tweeking the people what can be tweeked. (What the hell that Max guy does is beyond me, but) Joe is a near-saint. So, Joe, I'm sorry I impersonated that guy who wasn't gay. Your patient efforts are appreciated more widely than you probably realize. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: greg stephens Date: 27 Feb 03 - 06:13 PM To the people who are sick of threads on Iraq(and who can blame them?) may I commend my modest thread on "Musicians from Iraq" which has so far only attracted 7 postings, as opposed to the 17,336,471 letters on Iraqui politics we have to wade through. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Lepus Rex Date: 27 Feb 03 - 06:33 PM Well, this is the least bothersome to me of your "censorship" plans, Joe, as you're not deleting posts or preventing anyone from posting. But I urge you to choose the threads you relocate carefully, as those long strings of somewhat-related posts from a deleted thread can really disrupt the flow of the thread they're added to, and are difficult to read in their new form. (Much like that last sentence. Screw it. I'm tired.) But, of course, this thread brings out the ASG, once again howling for restrictions of GUEST privledges, and apparently trying to incite another irritating "I hate the Mudcat elite" flame war. I once again remind you, Joe, that they may be loud, and they may respond to your every suggestion with "Huzzah! Joe is God! Gimme that boot, Joe! *lick*" But they are a small minority of Mudcatters. I don't think the majority feels the need for draconian anti-GUEST pogroms. :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 27 Feb 03 - 06:42 PM Oh fer krisesakes, Lepus! Pogroms? Really over the top there, esp. considering the absolute bullshit certain GUESTs have posted trying to "save" us from our own ignorance and denial, long post after long post, after long post. Some of them make the right wing conspiracies nuts look half-way sane; in fact, I'll bet some of them kicked the holier-than-thou SOB, or maybe it should just be "B," out. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Feb 03 - 06:57 PM Basically I'm for it - but the kind of thing I'd worry about would be that threads like the musicians from Iraq thread might get swallowed us in a Iraq miscellany. A single issue can often have radically different aspects which can justify separate threads. I think we ought to make much more use of putting in links to other threads which seem relevant to us, like I did just then. I think that we are still stuck in ways of thinking that are pre-upgrade. Any thread longer than 50 or so used to be inaccessible to some people, and anything longer than 100 was a nuisance to everybody. That meant that starting a new thread rather than continuing on older one made sense. But now it really isn't necessary most times. The other thing that's been happening, as has been pointed out, is probably an effort by one or two people who like to pose as friends of free speech to try to force the Mudcat into a more moderated and controlled pattern, so that they can pretend it was like that all along. It's how some people get their kicks. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 27 Feb 03 - 07:57 PM I don't have any problem with Joe's policy. I do have a bit of a problem with people other than Joe thinking they need to do Joe's job for him. I hope those people (those who are not named Joe Offer) who are quick to jump into threads and yell for Joe to come move them, will not be hypocritical when it comes to the threads they start themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 27 Feb 03 - 10:09 PM Couldn't agree with you more, Carol. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 28 Feb 03 - 11:53 AM This policy is starting to confuse me quite a lot. We are instructed to add to existing threads when possible. Yesterday, a thread that was started in order to have a little fun was consolidated with some other threads in a way that made it not fun any more. So I looked up an old thread that was fun, thinking I'd put something I thought was funny on it in order to have some fun. This was a thread that had no acrimony on it and it was (is) a good natured, funny thread. The thread in question was started in October of 2002. The last post that was made to it was made in October of 2002. Two weeks ago, when I looked in on the thread in question, it was still open for posting. Today, when I looked in on it, it was closed. What's really going on here? Are we supposed to add to existing threads or not? Are there specific rules about what types of humor are permitted here (other than the rules about personal attacks, etc.)? If so, would someone please point to them in the FAQ? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Feb 03 - 12:52 PM Sorry, Carol, you'll have to be more specific. Which threads are you talking about? I consolidated three threads yesterday (click), based on suggestions from people who had posted to the three. Consolidating is not a perfect solution - it's better for people to use control on their own. As far as policy on specific types of humor, the only rule is "no personal attacks." As for starting threads, the rule-of-thumb is that only one thread on any given topic should be active at any given time. If there are 15 Iraq threads on the Forum Menu today, some are going to be consolidated. Five is tolerable. Fifteen is ridiculous. Yes, you're encouraged to add to existing threads. But refreshing sixteen Shatner threads or twenty Iraq threads is not going to make people happy. We want people to be happy here... -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 28 Feb 03 - 01:15 PM Neither Rob nor I start very many threads. We both practice moderation in the threads we post to in that there are many more non-music threads that we don't post to than those we do. We both are happy to follow rules that are clearly spelled out, and applied consistantly. But this rule looks like it's being applied selectively, and that's not only confusing, it's hurtful. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: dick greenhaus Date: 28 Feb 03 - 01:24 PM Joe- One counter-cultural suggestion: We have one thread on who's going to Old Songs. This just tacked the 2003 responses to those for the 2002 Festival. Why not split thim, and let last year's postings go back to sleep? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 28 Feb 03 - 01:28 PM Joe, you said As for starting threads, the rule-of-thumb is that only one thread on any given topic should be active at any given time. (My emphasis.) I have supported the consolidation of the myriad Iraq threads and I have been outspoken about nameless ones who have started so many on that and on conspiracies, because they just became ridiculous, as you say. BUT, I don't think the above rule is going to work. There are always going to be overlapping threads on any given subject and I don't see how to draw the line on some but not others. I added to the Political Misc. one, today, but really wanted a new thread because I feel what I was posting was very important, the way Bobert felt his thread on Saddam's interview was important. I think the one possible solution still might be limiting the right of nameless GUESTs from starting anything but music threads. Not even sure if that would work, though. Please know, this is not personal. IMO, you've done nothing more than what many have asked for or, agreed was a good idea. Thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: JohnnyBeezer Date: 28 Feb 03 - 03:09 PM What do the shorthand/Acronyms "BS" "GB" "PEL" stand for? Serious enquiry. Does anyone have a glossary of these esoteric (I'm English) references? Thanks Johnny N |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 28 Feb 03 - 03:37 PM hi, johnny, BS=Breeze shooting or, if you prefer, Bullsh** I haven't seen the context in which GB was used, but a guess would be George Bush or Great Britain (but you'd suss that one out, wouldn't you:->) PEL is Public Entertainment License of which there's been quite an uproar in the UK **BG** = Big Grin IMO = In my Opinion a variant is IMHO, in my humble opinion Hope that helps and welcome to the Mudcat! kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Pooka Date: 28 Feb 03 - 04:07 PM Joe, may I add to members' thanks for all you do for this community. I may not always agree with you, but (a) who cares? :) and (b) I cannot *imagine* having to do your job. You're making good-faith efforts to handle what is clearly a growing problem, while reasonably balancing the competing considerations. I get really annoyed at those cut-and-paste threads. :) hoo hah |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 28 Feb 03 - 05:24 PM What a bloody mess. I just came in here after a couple of days being away, and threads are being deleted, consolidated, closed...I tried reading the "consolidated" threads, and it was like listening to the rants of a madman. Great solution? You must be joking. RichM is dead on. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 28 Feb 03 - 05:37 PM Another negative to this plan--Joe Offer's merry band of clones are Mudcat insiders with a very low tolerance level for discussion of politics here on Mudcat. The political cleansing of the forum has begun. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,sorefingers Date: 28 Feb 03 - 05:54 PM Santus Sanctus Santus Is the deleter who vaporises non musician troller-flamers who divert the true path of the Mudcat FOLKMUSICIAN'S forum Joe eo Gratias |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rick Fielding Date: 28 Feb 03 - 08:36 PM So let me see if I've got things straight here? Joe is combining some threads 'cause they're reduntant (in his view).... He's eliminating some other ones 'cause he feels they're a waste of time. (is this actually true, or am I simply confused and just parroting what his detractors said) I'm assuming this is all being done to streamline the site a bit. Some folks (about three or four, and an anonymous guest who MAY be one person or six ) are pissed. How many people actually USE this site? Surely it's several hundred. So what's the BIG complaint that the majority might have? Is it the "Censorship, first admendment" thing? That is SOOOOO American, and this IS an international forum. Who cares if your immortal words get poofed? Write 'em again if you think you're that profound.....chances are they WON'T get bumped a second time. This place has long ceased being a viable source of really accurate detailed information about the old time,Blues, Bluegrass and Country Music I love, so there are other places I go to discuss that stuff, but Boy, have I learned a LOT about traditional Vocal music from the Cat....plus some great Gospel stuff, and tons of fringe stuff. It's still very valuable to me.....but for different reasons than when I came here four years ago. I LOVE the political discussions! But reading the same things over and over again from idealogues who simply can't spell, and don't give a shit about being part of the communinty just becomes boring. So who ARE the Joe Clones anyway? Apparently there are still folks here who think Max runs the place. Reading between the lines indicates to me that he stopped doing that a LONG time ago in order to have a life.....yet people KEEP using his name. Are the Joe Clones just the ones who answer all the technical questions? Is Jeri a Joe Clone? She seems pretty balanced. Are there others who are perhaps NOT as balanced? Jeez, I'm not sure I wanna know....perhaps Gargoyle is a Joe Clone...he knows a lot of computer stuff! Anyway, who ELSE would you want besides Joe making the decisions to keep Mudcat manageable? Not me, that's for sure....cuz I'd insist on memberships and identification....more fun (for me) that way, and I might even editorialize in every thread...it would be tempting. Nah....I think if someone's gonna push the buttons, it might as well be Joe. Many of us (the honoured inner circle) have met him, we know a LOT about him, and I think HE'S REASONABLY SANE! Remove this Joe, and I'll cut yer balls off! Cheers Rick Ballsoff? Remove WHAT, Mr. Rick? I don't wanna remove anything, Mr. Rick. No, Sir. Not ME! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 28 Feb 03 - 08:44 PM My dictionary defines Forum: Place of public discussion, court, tribunal. I am begining to think that Max's ideal is coming to resemble the last two, rather than the former. Order may be good or even necessary, but it is not and should never be considered the sole purpose of the forum. The tolerance and understanding that used to be the way and enabled all of us to contribute to the forum using only mutual respect, is sadly giving way to something else. The idea that there are PEL people or Iraq people is offensive. And the idea that these are any more of a different tribe than people who start any other thread on any other subject that may not be of personal interest to you or me is misguided. There were two Iraq threads started today that just didn't need to be started, since there already were a number of Iraq threads running. The new threads didn't deal with a major change - they were ancillary to the ongoing discussions. With a little thought, the thread originators could have fit their information into the ongoing discussion. The originators of these threads considered that these did need to be started. That view should be respected, even if you or me may not agree with it, for it is just a matter of opinion and personal taste after all. Everyone has every right to express their view, but not to express only it after imposing it by taking action. A PM could be sent first to the originator (if they have a cookie) and ask if they agree to any proposed course of action? I fear the PEL threads will give way to more non music pro or anti TPC threads like this one. Did this one really have to go on the main forum? Could it not have stayed in the help forum? The idea that the forum can have too many threads is rather like the Emperor in Amadeus, telling Mozart that his music has too many notes, and to take a few out! We may all have opinions but only the Emperors among us have the power to act on them............ |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,Jon Date: 28 Feb 03 - 09:19 PM Rick, I may get barred for life for this but my own "reality" says that Joe, Jeff and Jeri (wow 3 J's never though of that before) hold this place together. Joe is sort of leader of the forum organisation. I've had my own rows with Joe bit basically IMO his focus is on keeping something resembling music round here. Jeff, is IMO a very good programer. He is the hidden one who never gets the praise he deserves. Jeri, well, she was a very good friend until I went OTT with my criticisms here. She doesn't have the same power as Joe but is a genuine person wanting the best for Mudcat. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Feb 03 - 09:35 PM Shambles, forget the forum or threads or whatever and think about this a minute......In the case of the PEL it is a very important issue to say the least. Now as an American, I don't have a dog in that fight, but I have read along as best I could and tried to educate myself. I've stayed out of the opinion end but have occasionally asked a question to help me understand. The number of threads is significant at this point and it's easy to get lost. I think this is happening to a number of UK members as well. What I am suggesting is to keep a "PEL Daily News" thread going and to post to it. It would be easy to follow and not miss out on the latest change. THEN, if a significant development occurs, start a new thread on that but reference it in the News thread as well. News that fits one of the older threads can be listed in both the News thread and the appropriate existing thread or if you want the info in an older thread as background to the News post, link the one you want me to read as background in the News post. The number of PEL thread starts has improved but I think you would be well served to have a NEWS thread as a "meeting place." At 200 or 300 posts or every week or two start another one. It would make the whole thing infinitely easier to follow. Let's say you post a piece of news and I want to make an extended comment about it. If you have linked the right thread then I can post to the NEWS thread and say that I have an opinion and I have posted it on "XYZ" linked thread. Just a thought in your case and if you hate it, I'm sorry. it would be something I would consider were it I that were in your place. As to deletions or (gasp!) censorship on Iraq, none is taking place. Joe has moved messages and deleted only cut and paste stuff which he has explained. Everyone needs a place to express their opinions on the war and at lest a place to vent. But the situation is far different from PEL.......In the case of Iraq we have a very few people starting the vast majority of the threads, often with only cut and paste troll stuff. Everytime a new piece of news comes along, it doesn't warrant a thread, but if it does, anyone is free to start one......But geeziz let it be different and not the same friggin' thing!! Where Joe has transferred messages, they still exist and that ain't censorship! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 28 Feb 03 - 10:11 PM Managing excess threads is one thing. I can understand that. And for the past couple of years, I have regarded Joe as a friend. But in the case of the thread that was started yesterday that I have a problem with, Joe was asked repeatedly to delete it by the person who started it, as well as other people. Rather than deleting it, Joe moved it. After moving it, he was again asked to delete it. This has not been done. It feels like we are being used as an example to other people, and I don't think friends use friends in that way. Sorry Carol. I did what I thought was right, and I still think it's right. I take requests into consideration as much as I can, but I cannot honor every one. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 28 Feb 03 - 10:31 PM "My God...that's Moose turd pie!" |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,Claymore Date: 28 Feb 03 - 10:50 PM God I love it... Retorical Dawinism... only the best and most original survive... Niche Threading... The rest will be herded into the cattle pen of deletion... Does an old carnivores heart good. But seriously, it's long overdue. And I wouldn't worry about any real form of rules. In my experience most people view rules as some thing to read and, (1) Forget, until you're slapped by them, or (2) Try and figure a way around them. (If you don't believe me watch how many people get their work combined and then cry when they're caught, or go "Huh?"). Besides I'm willing to bet that Joe's judgements will be based in some part by the posting history of the person creating the thread. And frankly I like what I've seen so far. And thus the ultimate retort - If you don't like it... leave. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 28 Feb 03 - 10:58 PM I don't know if either you, Bill, or you, Claymore are responding to my last post, but if you are, you need to know that I have given my unconditional support to Joe and whatever decisions he has made for well over a year now. Whenever he has corrected me in threads, I have apologized and made the requested changes to my behavior. I'm not yelling moose turd pie. And I'm not trying to rag on Joe. I'm just feeling pretty jumpy about posting right now, and trivializing things doesn't help. Maybe that doesn't matter to the big picture, but it does matter to me. I think I'll clear out of this discusson now. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 Mar 03 - 12:45 AM Its pretty simple from my point of view. In the first post of this thread. It seemed to Joe said he was going after some pretty nasty characters. I thought I couldn't be one of them. Apparently I was wrong. We have some fascinating people at Mudcat, people who have well-honed opinions on just about any subject you can think of. If they're interested in a subject, they will give a well-reasoned response that really gives you something to think about. , and the well-reasoned messages get drowned in the flood. I thought I was one of the well honed, but I am apparently one of these. a small number of people have flooded the 'Cat with a huge amount of repetitive information Although this lesson which I have been taught came as something of a surprise, I respect Joe's right to run this place as he sees fit. He has shown that he believes that my particular brand of satire is "frivolous" (his words from a PM). My point was to try to have some people lighten up and have some fun, perhaps not to take all of this petty squabbling quite so seriously. If that offends the powers that be then I don't belong here. That puts me in a little bit of a bind Carol thinks very highly of many of you, she thinks this forum is important and considers it to be akin to the second home. I guess I don't have to like my in laws but it saddens me that this BS has hurt her. Another reason for me to avoid the MudCat, but it compels me to stay in touch. This exercise has been a success from one point of view. He certainly has curtailed any urges I might have to proliferate threads. I feel like the little kid who has been told to go sit in the corner. I never liked that I guess, I tested the limits in school and I still do. BillD have you ever known Carol to do anything other than express her honest feelings? I have no idea what you are trying to say. But I do know you well enough to believe that you wouldn't hurt her feeling on purpose. Claymore, I'm not looking for retorts or trying to give them, as far as I am concerned, this is just friends trying to work things out. Joe, I take full responsibility, for misreading your intentions, and for testing your limits. For the record, in answer to the first post in this thread. I did think a little before I posted. I did not think that my thread was ancillary to the discussion, it was a satirical comment on all of the discussions, I respect your right to disagree. My opinions are usually "honed" and "reasoned" I respect your right to judge if they are "well-honed" and "well-reason" I respectfully disagree with you contention that allegedly superior opinions are being "drowned in the flood" If the object is to express opinions then how well the opinions are "honed" hardly matters. I know that no one thinks me one of these people: very few people are starting a very large number of threads. If only because a couple of threads per month is not a very large number. I now notice that I had overlooked this sentence " I really hate to delete messages unless they're clearly harmful" I see now that had I been thinking more clearly I would have realized that this means that you are reluctant to delete threads. That you would not delete a thread even if it was the express wish of those participating even after the thread has lost all relevance except as a "cautionary tale". I had the understanding that it is the policy here to delete threads at the request of the author. I assumed differently I assumed that that policy was still in effect. I was wrong. Had I been that wise, I'd have taken my medicine and walked away. I would not blame anyone for thinking I have over analyzed this or for thinking I am being to sensitive. Put it down to the stress of five months of forced idleness and wanting to protect my wife. I also want to minimize further discussion of this by covering as much ground as possible. Please do not think less of Carol or attack her for sticking up for me and taking my side. I love her for that. Please accept my apology and let this end right here. I apologize, I will behave. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rick Fielding Date: 01 Mar 03 - 01:04 AM So...I'm going to ask the question again. If NOT Joe Offer, then WHO would you prefer running the ship? From what I've gathered, Joe is NOT an extremist, or fanatic in any one area. Surely that's good (for a moderator kind of guy) He's NOT a "one issue" guy. I mean there are folks here who NEVER even go INTO a trad. music thread, let alone have anything intelligent to say about it. So he doesn't like birthday threads...and he thinks there are too many PEL announcements....I'm sure there are folks who think the "Punch The Horse" joke is over-ripe, and that LH's "Shatner" stuff ceased to be funny after six months. I'm really not trying to defend the guy, in fact I've wondered a dozen times why someone would want the responsibility of this. I guess it's a kind of fun power, but boy, the hassles wouldn't be worth it for me. At first I was a tad concerned because I don't want ANYBODY who's religious, makin' decisions for me....but I quickly realized that Joe's as confused about the supernatural as I am...so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt (the last few words are a joke) Anyway.....bottom line to me: If not Joe...WHO? Cheers Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 01 Mar 03 - 01:35 AM I think Joe is a good moderator overall. But maybe he's carrying too much responsibility by himself. Maybe the job is just too emotionally exhausting for just one person to carry mostly on their own. Especially on top of the responsibilities that Joe has at home. Maybe it would help if the decision-making responsibilities were shared more equally between Joe and one or more of the Clones. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rick Fielding Date: 01 Mar 03 - 02:09 AM How do we know it isn't shared or discussed? What are the indications that he MAY be carrying too much of a load? Everytime he's posted he seems perfectly calm. Don't a lot of these decisions have to be made quickly? Seriously, would there be FEWER people complaining if Joe weren't the one making the decisions? I did a bit of looking back tonight, and there are really very few folks (who give their names) who seem disappointed...and almost all of them seem to be talking to Max as if he's listening and gives a shit, rather than living his life. I mean, I think most folks here find the anonymous Guest complaints entertaining, but would anyone CHANGE Mudcat because someone who wouldn't give a name demanded it? This isn't a hip young people's internet forum...it's a corny bunch of folkies who've found a surprising hobby....and it's a Community. Strikes me as Joe Offer's a pretty representative guy...and if he's willing to do all the stuff, then I'm happy to let him do it his way...whatever his motive. If a sizable percentage of people think differently, then he should let someone else do it. Eick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Mar 03 - 02:12 AM Well, all this is interesting. Basically, though, the responsibility for the forum is shared by Max, Jeff, and Joe - and Joe does most of the moderation of the Forum. Jeri shares some of that responsibility at times. No, you wouldn't want the responsibility shared by the Clones. No, you wouldn't want hard-and-fast rules if you got them. Basically, we try to exercise controls when things are messy here, and ease off when they're not. Things have been messy the last couple of weeks, so something had to be done. I try my best to use controls only when I must. I'm sorry, but I often can't explain why I do what I do - if I explain, it often serves to exacerbate the problem I'm trying to resolve. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Liz the Squeak Date: 01 Mar 03 - 02:27 AM Er... I think I'd like to see a list of everyone - and I know it isn't just Joe who has deletion/movement control in this place.... not for any reason other than I like to know who to blame if something I start goes missing less than an hour after posting. Then of course there's the security reason... if there are Joe Clones out there with those powers, do they have access to my personal details, the stuff without which you can't acquire a cookie.....? I don't want to have to be bailed out of a South African jail, just because law enforcement officers think I'm Mata Hari..... LTS |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Mar 03 - 03:24 AM Hi, Liz - the Clones are allowed to delete messages only to resolve technical problems. In certain limited circumstances, they can delete problem messages - but they have to notify Jeff or me that they've done it. If a deletion is unwarranted, Jeff and I can restore it. If there's a deletion you question, contact me by personal message. Jeff, Max, Jeri, and I have access to registration information. The Clones don't. Various people have various levels of editing access at various times. No, I'm not going to furnish a list of who has what access. Jeff, Max, and I control and monitor the editing process, and all editing is done under our authority. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 01 Mar 03 - 06:01 AM Lets us all be clear, this thread IS only about censorship. The justification given for this censorship, is that things were 'messy'? My view is that if this so-called 'mess' offends ANYONE, then THEY can always can leave us to own mess. Is it not totally illogical to start yet another thread to complain/explain that there were too many threads and to gain approval for actions based on this? Is it a technical problem? Are there just too many contributions to the forum? If so it matters little (except to a tidy mind), if these contributions are contained in one thread or over many. For this then is a technical problem and clearly requires a technical solution, not an excuse to exert a tidy mind and for that particular personal view to be imposed. What then is the problem this time that can only apparently be resolved by our 'minders' taking action and then asking for approval? Why could this not be flagged up with the individuals concerned first? I don't want to talk here too much about the PEL problem in the UK, but this fight is over two issues that are important to many of us on this forum. These are music and the right and freedom to express this. Much needed and much appreciated help has provided by many contributors, from all over the world. Over two years the Government and our local authorities have come up with wonderful and ingenious reasons and justifications why the simple human right act of making music, presented all sorts of problems. To my knowledge, that the situation was 'messy; was not one of the reasons given but to our civil servants and local officials do tend to have more tidy minds, than say many of us 'oddballs' on this forum. However, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in our Parliament has concluded that in order to prevent this freedom of expression, a proportionate response to a pressing social need is first required. This cross party committee of MPs and Lords, are not satisfied the Bill (or the current regime) has demonstrated this. Has the case ever been made on the forum for this freedom of expression to be subject to the selective and subjective views of a single individual (other than the originator of the forum)? To my knowledge three independent requests have been made for the huge list of two years of related PEL threads, to be removed from appearing at the top of every PEL thread and some better method found. This appears to present too many problems and the only practical response to this that I can see so far, is that a thread that I originated and was (correctly) linked to these PEL threads was unlinked because the original linking was "believed" to be a mistake. It was not and a PM to the originator would have confirmed this but no such PM was made before action was taken. This thread title and contents are significant for any contributors who may find themselves in the position of the following It seemed to Joe said he was going after some pretty nasty characters. I thought I couldn't be one of them. Apparently I was wrong. Then they came for me Roger, I don't like the way thread grouping works when there's a long list of threads, either. It works quite well in most situations, but the PEL list and Woody Guthrie and a couple of others don't group satisfactorily with the system we have. Jeff is toying with alternate ideas, but has not yet come up with an alternative that is satisfactory. Be assured that your request has been heard. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 01 Mar 03 - 07:42 AM Would you folks just take a breath? This is a friggin' forum, not the government of major countries. You act as if something bad is going to happen to your pet if you post wrong. The simple fact is that the Mudcat, due to certain individuals actions (some intended, some not) is in trouble. It is slipping down the slope to irrelevance to the same folks (new and old, I am referring to personality types, not individuals here)that made it a success. How often do you see Liam's Brother here? Frank McGrath? I could go on and on. The time has come to clean it up and that is what Joe is doing. The most valid, and central question, is asked by Rick. He recognizes and states that we have significant problems and they must be fixed. That leads to who should do it. Joe and I have disagreed many times on what we should have as rules. I probably don't think that all of his moves are correct. But............and this is a key...............he is the best person for the job. And he does it well. He is not here to function as anything other than a benevolent dictator. Why? Because he has devoted the time, and (for the most part) has demonstrated a cool head. I have seen him make decisions that he later reversed because he was convinced to do so. I know him as friend as well as Chief of the Clones. We differ on how to handle some problems, but there is no one I would rather have making the decisions. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,Jon Date: 01 Mar 03 - 07:46 AM Shambles, there are techincal issues that I would consider but the bulk of everything here are social problems. There is no real sense of direction given from the top (Max). Joe takes the responsability (at least publically I don't know what private chat there may be with Joe and Max) and at times gets shot down for trying to do it. I think there would be fewer people cussing and yelling if Max said "This is what we are going to do". That is not Joe's fault. What Mudcat has become is a battle of peronalities each with thier own beliefs. A nuber of people are more concerned by what they see as thier own rights being infringed than seeing that perhaps excersising those rights cause problems to others. So we have a battle field. This battlefield also helps open doors to trolls, though I believe willingness to respond is the major problem there. I think that without some recognition of problems, Mudcat will eventually self destruct and even as a "Max hater" (I don't have that feeling BTW) and operator of a "rival site", or whatever else anyone may think of me don't want to see that. I spent too long here and got too involved here not to care. I think the biggest tech issue was solved with the BS filter. This does mean the strict music people can enjoy that side without having to see the BS and I see no reason why the 2 can't sit happily side by side. There still always will be debates over volume of threads musical or BS and I think whats needed there is discussion, not arguments. I'll use the PEL one as an example. It is very important to any of us who enjoy live music in England and Wales (and personally I live for my weekly session - I can't wait for the next one...) but the way it was tackled here clearly angered people. We must also realise that not everyone here will be affected by PELs. A good commutity surely would be capable of recognising both sides of the problem and trying to get together to work out a solution enabling the visibiltiy of the important problem but reducing the number of threads and annoyance caused. Mudcat has grown and is huge. It needs to mature enough to cope with differences of opinions within the community. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Tinker Date: 01 Mar 03 - 08:55 AM All rights come with responsibilities. Communities have growing pains just like any other living thing. One model compares the size of an organization and it's problems by personality. Small, insular and cat like... Medium, friendly and more like a collie... Large, diversifing and potentailly corporate and compartmentalized...The Basic folk personality doesn't to the last very well IMHO Mudcat has grown at a phenomenal rate and once we take a name it's easy to forget we are all guests. There are no "taxes" to join or participate. There are no "service hours" to donate. It's presence is a gift and all we are asked to return is respect to each other. Joe is NOT an employee who's performance we are asked to review. He is NOT an elected offical who you can choose to recall. He is an extremely patient and mostly gentle man who gives of himself to maintain, corrall, and help form this place. Like all of us, at times he can irritate and annoy individuals, but I would guess more rarely than most. I've disagreeed with Joe, but I wouldn't take on this place if given it with full funding. I doubt many others would either. Tinker |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 01 Mar 03 - 09:54 AM Actually Tinker, I don't think it would be all that difficult to do the job of moderating the forum. The problem we're seeing right now, is that Max has always stated that Mudcat is NOT AND WILL NOT BECOME a moderated forum. Nonetheless, without any discussion, announcement, etc. the forum has been changed from unmoderated to moderated by Joe and the clones, which include people like catspaw and katlaughing, who are very busy defending their "behind the scenes suggestions" Lepus Rex keeps referring to in these very threads. It is their suggestions, which it doesn't take an idiot to figure out, are now being implemented with no announcements. How do I know just whose suggestions are being implemented here? I don't for certain of course, because I'm not a privleged insider. But some of us can read and read between the lines of the most transparent posters here. Lepus has sussed out the same thing through his close readings of certain people's posts to the forum. The rest of you don't notice when the clones are at work, because they haven't come for you and your posts. Yet. So some people, like Beedubyaeel, CarolC, The Shambles, etc. feel they have been victims of an insulting, embarrassing enforcement of rules they didn't know existed, have never read, and don't understand the need for, yet still feel compelled to support "the moderator" because that is what a reasonable "member" does. So, what does any of this have to do with "nasty characters" and "anonymous guests"? Well, the truth is, not much. Mudcat hasn't had any serious problems with trolls and flame wars in quite a long time, actually. There have been plenty of heated discussions, but they have remained quite civil. So the reality is, these changes are being implemented because a group of Mudcat insiders, some of whom are also clones, have decided they are sick and tired of "reading through" certain types of BS threads. Well, as some very reasonable people have pointed out a million times, if they don't like the BS threads, they now have an easy option to keep all that visual clutter out of their personal lives--it is called the BS filter. But that just isn't good enough for them. No, now they want EVEN MORE POWER TO CONTROL THE POLITICAL THREADS. Please note, the only threads being consolidated/censored and deleted are ones the de facto forum moderator Joe, and his merry band of clones, have decided are the most offensive to them personally. It is no coincidence that the types of threads Joe and the clones have deemed "frivolous" also include posters they personally don't like, and would like to somehow prosecute/persecute in their typical passive/aggressive way. One can only wonder what would have happened to the Drumcree threads under the new jack boot rules. Lepus Rex is dead on right about one thing. One guest in particular (me), who doesn't post personal attacks, contributes as much as many here to the music threads, but who enjoys the banter of the political BS threads, is particularly loathed by Joe, catspaw, Big Mick, and katlaughing. Sure there are plenty of others who loathe me as well, but they don't wield power behind the scenes of this forum the way the inner elite do. Check out their "complaints" that are in lockstep with Joe's solutions, and their "justifications" in these threads that provide the "logic" to support the current "remedy" to...what exactly? We haven't been told exactly what the problem is that these "new rules" are designed to remedy, have we? The changes we are seeing now are to fix problems that don't even exist. The changes we are seeing now are the result of Joe and the clones putting their collective heads together and deciding that Iraq and PEL threads are "a problem". Who among have complained to Joe about these threads being a problem? And what problem is it that these threads are causing, exactly? It would be so much better for the insider community if certain changes would be implemented. One, membership only. That way Mudcat could be the private club it felt like to these people when they first joined, which it will never be again because of the growth of members. Because you see, it is the Mudcat insiders who are the power behind Joe's throne, and it is THEIR will we are seeing done here. They are the ones who demanded this music forum tolerate the BS, because they loved the BS. When it was about them and their Mudcat clubhouse. Now, because of the growth of the forum, the BS isn't about them. The BS is often quite serious and political. The power behind the Mudcat throne is only willing to tolerate the political BS to a point. We will just never know what that is. We will also never know if and when our (especially) ironic attempts to start a serious thread with something humorous will be deleted or consolidated for being "frivolous". I also wonder who will suggest that Joe Offer's personal attacks on certain forum members and guests need to be deleted too. Because Joe Offer does say some pretty damn insulting things to people here. Not the sign of a good moderator. Good moderators don't attack the forum users. Good forum moderators don't use a personal yardstick to judge what is acceptable, because in most moderated forums, there are a number of moderators with different philosophies about what is and isn't acceptable, and must reach consensus before any individual action is taken. Clearly, the de facto moderators of the forum have begun to flex their collective muscle, and Joe is being sent out as the public face of it. But in case some of you haven't noticed, Joe ain't here 24/7 while all this "consolidation" is taking place. Don't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Aw, I don't dislike you. You write very well, and I admire your chutzpah. I actually agree with you on most of the political opinions you've expressed. Your main problem is that you're so darn prolific - you produce words too fast. I just have to keep you in check a bit, so you don't overwhelm the forum and crowd out the music stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jeri Date: 01 Mar 03 - 10:29 AM Joe is going after redundant threads, threads that begin with no message, just a link, and deleting stuff that probably has no business being here anyway, as in "I don't have anything to say, but I need to type something anyway." (No, I'm not talking about humor - we need some humor.) We've always (since we've had the capability) combined similar threads and deleted blank messages. I personally wouldn't delete the "here's a cool link" messages but would move the link to an appropriate thread if there were one. If I were mostivated by ego instead of a desire for discussion, and wanted to start whole bunch of threads to get a whole bunch of responses, I could post link after link (or cut-and-paste after cut-and-paste) in thread after thread because it's too easy and I didn't have to type anything. Most folks wouldn't do that but it's become painfully obvious that some would. The thread that was grouped with PELs and was unlinked - well I did the un-link - it was fairly obvious to me that, while that thread could be related to PELs, it was also related to other issues going on. I watched that thread and the Help Forum (correcting mistakes is the reason it exists). Not one word. I'm just guessing, but I'd bet Joe never got a PM about it either. This silence led me to believe the un-linking was the right thing to do. The thread is now back in the group. As far as the large list of PEL threads - yes, a lot of threads have been started on the PEL issue. We could combine some threads, but that's very intensive and no doubt would be used as evidence against us. It would be possible to move the list somewhere, but that would also be evidence - "I can tell you don't want anybody to find it way down at the bottom like that!" Same with completely deleting the grouping. It's not up to me, but I don't believe it's reasonable to change the entire structure of Mudcat for one particular issue that seems to have gotten out of hand regarding number of threads. On the other hand, maybe the PEL threads could be broken into subgroups. Most arguments in this thread are all about hypothetical situations - the what ifs and the worst case scenarios. It's not realistic. Maybe some folks are just expressing their darkest thoughts out loud. I'm sure we all can think of people we wouldn't trust with making judgement calls consistently temptered by common sense and self control. They may have difficulty not reacting emotionally to what people do or say. Unfortunately, since they can't keep emotions from motivating behavior, they assume no one can. There are other people who just see an opportunity to troll. The use of the word "censorship" used to describe the moving of posts as opposed to deletion is a fairly blatant indicator. Mentioning names and attributing Evil Motives is another. It's a whole lot easier to remain calm about issues than perceived attacks on people - just gotta react to those! (Sits back to watch reactions to above message.) I trust Joe even though I may not always agree with him. He's a volunteer but behaves professionally. I believe I do the same. I fix stuff for everyone, no matter how I feel about them or whether I agree with them or not. I personally don't care for the large amount of words in the large amount of PEL threads, (I'm not talking about any discussion of this worthy cause) but I still read some of them. I thought I was doing something right by ungrouping that message. (I haven't yet been called on the carpet for fixing occasional links in those threads, but I assume that sort of thing goes un-noticed.) If you have complaints on specific problems, please say something. If I don't know about it, I'm not taking any responsibility for its continued existance. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rick Fielding Date: 01 Mar 03 - 11:11 AM Ahhhh who gives a shit??!! All of us who've been here longer than it takes for a cup of coffee, know that Joe does his best in a "no win" situation. Most of this pallaver is just that. We do it for fun. IF he made a mistake with something that Jack the sailor said...chances are he won't do it again...but Jack can't be THAT pissed 'cause he found Carol here...and that ain't chopped liver!! GUEST (of above long post) Janet Ryan (I call her by her name 'cause she's addressed me in the past by MY name) is one of our most articulate posters, but she knows darn well that keeping things sane around here is NOT an easy job. Too many agendae blowing in the wind. We're ALL just killin' time til the grave here...and I bet even the folks complaining in this thread are havin' fun! Doubt if they'll admit it though! Ha ha! Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 01 Mar 03 - 11:13 AM "BillD have you ever known Carol to do anything other than express her honest feelings?"...of course not! If I hit a nerve, I truly apologize. (I seem to remember my own "honest feelings" not being totally well received at various times...*insert wry smile here*) *sigh*....all I was trying to say above was that being the 'cook' is a hard job, and that constant 'suggestions' about flavoring, recipes, and ingregients can sure LOOK like complaints, even if if one follows up with "..good, though!" when I typed my pithy little comment, I had NO one specific in mind, (I barely read the names associated with some of those comments) and was merely suggesting, in my late night stupor, that if one IS happy with the cook, let 'em cook, with very minimal comment...and I would suggest that unless one's comment NEEDS public airing, it might be best to PM Joe with your concerns, rather than doing it all in the threads where dozens, if not hundreds, of minds with different views can do almost anything to it. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 01 Mar 03 - 11:50 AM But what is the problem? Is there one? Too many threads? Too many posts? Too many threads on subjects that some people do not like? Before the attempt is made to fix something it may be a good idea to see if it in fact broken. That people are going round fixing things without bothering to find out if it is generally considered to be broken, and doing it IN MY NAME, is what I see as the problem. Is less than one thread a week over a two year period on aspects of the same music related subject, too many? For that is the situation and figure established with the PEL threads. But this fact has not prevented a witch hunt and a mind-set verging on hysteria, that every attempt made by the posters to address the various concerns expressed, has not mangaged to alay. But surely if you don't care for the subject, don't open them, for they are (mostly) clearly marked. Jeri's post continues the myth that an issue seems to have gotten out of hand, without ever establishing what that means or that less than one thread a week over two years IS in fact presenting any more of problem than the same number of threads over the same period of time, on other subjects. As far as the large list of PEL threads - yes, a lot of threads have been started on the PEL issue. We could combine some threads, but that's very intensive and no doubt would be used as evidence against us. It would be possible to move the list somewhere, but that would also be evidence - "I can tell you don't want anybody to find it way down at the bottom like that!" Same with completely deleting the grouping. It's not up to me, but I don't believe it's reasonable to change the entire structure of Mudcat for one particular issue that seems to have gotten out of hand regarding number of threads. On the other hand, maybe the PEL threads could be broken into subgroups. When your strict rules are seen to present a problem by an unforseen response to one issue, it may be an idea to re-examine those strict rules, rather than critising the large forum response, or number of words on that perfectly valid subject. And again without indentifing the exact problem, the suggestion solution comes in. To break them into subgroups! They are already broken into subgroups - they are called threads................ Some joined up thinking is called for at his point, not drawing around the wagons in defence and shooting from the hip. This post expresses perfectly the paranoia that is evident in those who refer to themselves as 'we', as a group distinct from 'us'. The only real problem with the PEL threads, apart from matters of personal taste is that having that many related threads at the top of each thread and then the list of posters (400 or so posts to the petition thread for example), is that folk lose the will to live before they ever get to the discussion itself. I gave a out a link to one of the PEL threads and the person I gave it to, gave up, telling me that the site was not working as all they saw was a list of titles and names.... I fail to see this as a difficult problem. A single link to a thread where a full list of all the related threads can be found would solve this small problem for all subjects that may prove to have many related links. Despite these problems, The Mudcat has made a huge inpact on this issue and has been directly responsible for creating the team and informing the individuals whose efforts have resulted in many changes being made to the legislation. Something I feel all those on the forum can and should be proud of. I would like to give thanks for all the positive efforts made and those who are just putting up with the PEL threads. There will still need to be a few more yet, I fear. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 01 Mar 03 - 12:00 PM Fixing links, putting in the line breaks, consolidating EXACT DUPLICATE THREADS (not threads that a clone or Joe has deemed repetitive)--those are the things I understood were being done by Joe and the clones. I have understood the unspoken "rules" of Mudcat to be that those are the only sorts of tasks done by Joe and the clones, and that decisions about what gets deleted based upon content alone, was a decision that was made by Max. It is clear Max isn't involved with the daily operation of the forum now, and hasn't been for some time. So my guess is that Joe now makes those decisions, and has instructed the clones to delete here and there, consolidate there and here, based upon content. That is a very big change. The new "thread management" system being implemented now, ie the selective deletion and moving of posts and threads based upon the post/thread content, is the slippery slope to censorship. I agree that the word 'censorship' is a powerful, potent word. But that doesn't mean it doesn't apply here. And why the secrecy about who is actually moderating the forum? In an open, friendly forum, one always knows who the moderators are, so why is Joe insisting on keeping the identities of the clones a secret? Answer: power, control, and a lack in self-confidence about what Joe and his clones are doing. Not necessity. Only fear could be driving this paranoid set of rules. And the fear driving this engine of change Joe and his clones insecurities. They don't feel confident about what they are doing. I don't think they should feel confident about their abilities to moderate, because they really don't seem to be up to the task. I agree Jeri, that moderation isn't that tough for people who can do it well. I've been in a number of forums where it is done beautifully, and one never even notices that it is being done. But one of essential elements to good and even excellent forum moderation is not bearing grudges about certain posters who are frequent and/or regular contributors to the forum. It is easy to say that we shouldn't use the names of the people who we perceive are the problem. But that tactic often shields and protects the guilty. Let's face it. Everyone knows that Beedubya/Bruce, CarolC, The Shambles are all members in good standing in the forum. So it seems to me that painting them as guilty parties publicly, as has been done here in recent days with these bullshit "consolidation" and "deletions" (don't use the word "censorship"!) games being played by Joe and clones, is just patently unfair, and selective prosecution. Some people here are being held up as examples, who are guilty of nothing. Absolutely nothing. And I do include myself in that list. The two threads and posts I have voiced an objection to having deleted/consolidated, were the BS thread providing a link to a Vonnegut interview, and a thread on the Justice Dept's prosecution of sellers of drug paraphenalia. One was serious, the other was intended to be humorous. Neither were about Iraq or PEL. The justification used was first that the subject matter of the threads was "frivolous". When people challenged that, the justification given was that I was a "problem guest". I'll admit to being a thorn in the side of many here, but I'm not any more guilty of being a problem than the anonymous guest who was behind the Drumcree threads. A bit of a double standard? You bet. Finally, when people like Lepus Rex challenged the whole "anonymous guest as nasty character" thing, the justification became that I hadn't provided enough context for a reasonable and worthy thread discussion to ensue. That too was challenged, most recently by Beedubya/Bruce. Considering that none of the above justifications have been legitimate, I think it is easy for at least some here to conclude that these "changes" aren't in the best interest of the forum. Liz said she did want to know who the clones were. That isn't an unreasonable request in a moderated forum. Well moderated forums always have the information visible and up front on who the moderators are, so they can be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Here, with the secrecy that is rampant among the Mudcat inner circle and a few in the ring surrounding them, secrecy about the "identities" is paramount. The obsession driving this, once again, is rooted in the identity issues that are so central to the problems on Mudcat. As has been pointed out, there will never be a solution that satisfies those who are so deeply disturbed by the internet identity issues in this forum, who have become the power behind the Mudcat throne. Because even if this forum were made member only, there would be no certainty about all identities used by members, just like there is no certainty about all identities used by guests. As has been pointed out so often in this forum, the problem isn't with the identity labels typed in the from line, because that will never be sorted out. Too many ISPs generate random IP numbers, and won't answer questions from site maintainers about the identities of their users. So the identity issue in Mudcat is a false one to begin with, because that is just the reality of the internet. The problem here truly is with a few Mudcat members who now have power members haven't had in the past. Sadly, those members, including Joe, are obsessed with the identity issues, and use them to drive a wedge between users of the forum. Some of them, though few of us except the privleged few, know who the clones and the power behind the throne are. And just as Lepus Rex has said repeatedly, they are the ones driving "the changes" being made now. Their grudges against me may very well be driving a lot of this. We have no idea which clones are now allowed access to the files and logs that contain information about individual poster identities. And my guess is, we never will. But the people who are now calling the shots haven't impressed me with their ability to set aside any personal feelings they have about specific users of this forum, and moderate judiciously and fairly. Rather, everything I've seen so far indicates that they are regularly overstepping their bounds and tripping over one another to "get back" at certain posters they have it in for, and will use the protective cover of the new rules as justification for their personal vendetta campaigns. Welcome to the new and improved Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: JohnnyBeezer Date: 01 Mar 03 - 12:03 PM Thanks very much for your help Kat! I look forward to having some fun. Best wishes Johnny N |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Ralphie Date: 01 Mar 03 - 12:37 PM Oh Dear Oh Dear Oh Dear.... Welcome to Paranoia Corner..! Ralphie (Not Flaming...But, Drowning) |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 01 Mar 03 - 12:53 PM One guest in particular (me), who doesn't post personal attacks, contributes as much as many here to the music threads, but who enjoys the banter of the political BS threads, is particularly loathed by Joe, catspaw, Big Mick, and katlaughing. WAMSO Matriot, I have never met you, hence it is hard for me to loathe you. What I do loathe are your methods and what I see as your motives. This is where Rick and I differ on you. He thinks that you are trying to move from a troll to a contributing member of the community. I don't see you that way. I see you continuing (this thread is a good example) to try and stir problems, then when you manage to cause a problem, coming on as some kind of intellect or voice for the disenfranchised. We call that type of manipulation "self fulfilling prophecy". And sure as the sun comes up, others who have been rude, disruptive, and disrespectful jump on with you. But, hard as this is to believe, this is not about you, or me, or Rick, or Shambles, or Jon, or Kat, or even Joe. It is about this wonderful place starting to deteriorate to the point of not being "the town I always wanted to live in" to quote Rick. Once upon a time we had many of the best and brightest of our various genre's that came here regularly. We had threads that were interesting, and the topical stuff full of fierce and interesting debate. The agenda's of the posters at that time seemed to be clearer and the intent was not to disrupt and destroy. Rather it was to intently and intensely debate. There were many calls back then to make it music only, but I and others resisted that. We felt as though there were many "music only" sites, but this one was different as it contained friendly banter, intense debate, and downright silliness, by and between musical people and about the stuff that we make music about. Along the way, something has happened. This place has become the haven of folks that are so caught in an agenda, that the debate has become argument. It has become a place where folks who, when their arguements don't seem to be getting traction, attack decent folks who are just trying to keep this place alive. WAMSO, I often attack your motives. Let me give you examples of why. It has been pointed out many times that those of us who are clones are not allowed to delete anything. We simply assist in correcting typo's when requested, fixing links, eliminate duplicate posts, etc. The only time we eliminate an offending post is when we feel it is so egregious (sp?)as to merit immediate elimination. Even then we must email Joe, or Jeff, and if they don't agree they reinstate it. In all my time here, I have done that once. Yet even with that knowledge, even after it has been pointed out to you by Joe on a number of occasions, you continue to act as though we are eliminating stuff on a regular basis. Ain't so. Another example. Once there was a Veteran's Day thread that simply asked if we could just let it be a thank you thread for those inclined to say so. It had no political intent, and I even asked that if one was inclined to debate, could we move it to another thread and just let this be. You immediately hijacked it, and despite any number of requests continued to attack. I could go on, but I won't. The idea behind the moves by Joe are simply stated and plain to see. He simply wants to stop the Forum Page from having more than one or two threads on the same subject. He also is trying in the best way he knows how to return the Forum to its intent. He is the best man for that. I don't know why any of you come here, but I will say this. If you want to return this place to something like the place that drew you here originally, go along with Joe on this. His motives are pure, and his methods, while not perfect, are as good as we are going to get. Respectfully, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest Date: 01 Mar 03 - 12:58 PM For what it's worth... I started the NPR / CIA thread. I started that as an independent thread because I posted the same thing in the body of another thread which was 'consolidated' almost immediately after. The consolidation obscured the NPR observation...so I wondered why that had been done. From what I've gathered in reading on Mudcat, the site receives certain grants, etc., for operation. Govt sponsorship? So I decided to push the envelope and re-post the NPR thing to see how deeply-indebted to the govt this site is. I've had other threads deleted and changed (I started the 'Anti-war' thread with the name 'The Hated Guest' only to have that part removed, so it now seems to have been started by an anonymous guest. Have NO idea why that was done. And I've had a couple of threads...a couple that I can recall at the moment, maybe more...just outright removed). Anyway, I expected the NPR thing to be deleted, but I guess some rules about excessive deletion apply...rules I'm not familiar with. So instead of deleting, 'Joe' enhanced the thread title with "(Conspiracy of the Day)", then made an entry which he later came back to and enhanced with more verbiage about 'black helicopters' and such. Third-grade name calling. Then later I read where the Joes are encouraging diversity and involvement...bullshit. I expect, if you folks really ARE seeing new and unprecedented changes on this forum, the changes are a result of political panic. These are unusual times, and government sites are going to do what they have to do to keep their grant money coming in. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest Date: 01 Mar 03 - 01:01 PM 'Greatest Anti-War Song Ever?' That was the thread with the name-change at the start. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,Karen Date: 01 Mar 03 - 01:04 PM GUEST 01 Mar 03 - 09:54 AM, Dreaded Guest, Hated Guest, Dratted Guest, or whatever name applies, or is applied to/by others, makes this valid point: "So the reality is, these changes are being implemented because a group of Mudcat insiders, some of whom are also clones, have decided they are sick and tired of "reading through" certain types of BS threads." Personally, I just don't get this argument. No matter where on the web you go, you have to read through a lot of stuff that doesn't interest you, so why complain about it? I could understand the "too much BS argument" when there was no BS filter, and people who came here to discuss music were really tired of reading through so much BS. But there just isn't a problem here that I can identify. So what if there are a lot of threads about PEL or Iraq? They can't be any more frivolous or inane than BS threads about men wearing socks with their sandals, can they? If people don't like or are fed up with particular BS subjects, yet still want to read the BS threads, shouldn't they just ignore them and shut up about it? Live and let live, all that? Considering that there is a BS filter now, it seems to me that all these complaints of people being "fed up" with certain subjects is just plain ole whining and belly aching by the most intolerant among us. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest Date: 01 Mar 03 - 01:13 PM Just happened to be here and saw your post, Karen...that 'Guest' wasn't me at 9:54AM. I used to post anonymously but some others started posting UFO stuff at the same time I would in order to discredit what I was saying, so now I always sign with SOME name. But yeah...use the BS filters. This really is a well-thought-out site, and people seem to reserve most of the BS for the BS threads, so with a simple click you can eliminate most of the political or 'offensive' stuff. If people aren't doing that, it's because they don't WANT to. Go figure. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 01 Mar 03 - 01:32 PM Thanks, Mick, for putting it so well. Thanks, johnnyn! Way back when in this thread, I posted a concern to Joe about the new consolidation of threads. I have also disagreed with him about the PEL threads. I thought they have been very important because of the impact on music. Those who have invested their time and care in this community by being here through thick and thin will remember that Joe and I have often knocked heads and how silly it is to think that myself, or indeed any of the other people mentioned: Mick, Jeri, Catspaw, etc., are the types to kowtow to anyone, let alone Joe. FOR THE RECORD: There are no government monies going into supporting Mudcat. Janet Ryan said, why the secrecy about who is... I might ask her the same thing re' her myriad of postings as "guest." I have NEVER hidden the fact that I am a clone. Clones CANNOT read, nor access, members' personal information, including their email, UNLESS MEMBERS make it public for all to see in the Members' Info Section. I NEVER delete a post of someone whom it may be perceived I may have a problem with, i.e. gargoyle. If I see a posting that is a personal attack, I will delete it, as clones are authorised to do, BUT I will always notify Jeff or Joe when I have done so. If I see a questionable attack or cut and paste job, I will PM Joe about it. I do not delete, edit, nor move it. Like Jeri said, I do fix links, delete duplicate posts, and fix bad html. I don't give a damn if anyone notices. I am glad to be of service. And, finally, if someone has a problem with me or something they think I may have done, please PM me or take it up with Joe or Jeff. As Jeri said, we don't know if you don't tell us. Thank you, kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,Karen Date: 01 Mar 03 - 01:34 PM This thread was 32 posts old before a single guest post appeared, and nearly 50 posts old before a second guest post appeared. Yet certain members keep trying to sidetrack the subject of the thread, and make the identities of guest posters "the problem". By current count, this thread has 81 posts. This post of mine makes it the 15th post to this thread by a guest, whether anonymous or with a handle. 15 out of 81 posts isn't all that many, yet a couple of members are once again making guests, whose identities they just love to speculate about, the issue here. So what exactly are the problems Mudcat management are attempting to correct here? Guests? Certain guests? Certin members? Certain members and guests certain members think might be so and so? Too many threads about Iraq and PEL? Cutting and pasting? Or is the problem that Mudcat is under new management without our being told? Could it be that the new management is posing problems?That happens sometimes, when there are a lot of newcomers to a group, and the old timers feel the need to control the newcomers. So they do what new management often does, and shake things up with a makeover in their own image? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,Karen Date: 01 Mar 03 - 01:50 PM katlaughing and Rick Fielding, how do you know that the guest you are calling Janet Ryan, is actually a person named Janet Ryan, who posted the message you said she posted at (I'm guessing based upon your posts using this name) 9:54 a.m. to this thread? How is it that the two of you have access to this information that the rest of us don't have? How did you get that information about this person? I have done a search of the forum archive and come up with this result for the name "Janet Ryan": http://www.mudcat.org/Results.CFM Two posts from someone using the name Janet Ryan as a guest on the same day, in 2001. So what is going on here? Do the two of you have access to IP information and ISPs through Mudcat that you have used to identify this person? Is doing that sort of thing legal? It sure doesn't seem very ethical. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 01 Mar 03 - 01:54 PM It doesn't appear as though the link I gave above is working. Here are the results from the old forum search: UserName Subject Posted 1 GUEST,Janet Ryan RE: BS: What do you read ? 16 Jun 01 - 11:10 AM 2 GUEST,Janet Ryan RE: BS: Nice Treaty 16 Jun 01 - 10:11 AM |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,Karen Date: 01 Mar 03 - 01:57 PM Above is mine. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Peter T. Date: 01 Mar 03 - 02:23 PM "peronalities", what a great typo. (As I have said many times, manners maketh Mudcat). yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,Karen Date: 01 Mar 03 - 02:31 PM A Google search for Janet Ryan turns up this link: http://www.janetryan.com/ According to her website, she is a blues singer/songwriter, has a band called Straight Up, and they look to be a Chicago band. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Mar 03 - 03:20 PM Well, I suppose you could look on it as a battle for turf. The "turf" is the Forum Menu. It's important turf, because it's the main portal to our discussion forum. It has an effect on all of us, visitors and oldtimers alike. If we visit Mudcat and see a variety of topics that interest us, we'll stick around and join the discussion. If there are very few music threads visible, the musicians may not stay long. If there is an overwhelming number of threads on any given topic, people not interested in those topics aren't likely to stay. So, our Forum Menu should have a balance, an balance that will be inviting to the people we want to invite. My job is to maintain that balance, and to control people who are intent on causing trouble. I try to do it with as little interference as possible, but it's a difficult task. Jeff give me tools to do what I do, and I'm somewhat limited by the limitations of those tools. Thread grouping is a marvelous tool, but it doesn't work as well as we'd like on long lists of related threads. We're working on it. It's nice to be able to move messages and delete redundant threads, if done sparingly - I have to deal with messages one at a time, so that helps encourage me to do it sparingly. You know, I'm not sure that thread creation is the root of our problem. If this were a social group, the birthday and personal threads wouldn't be out of balance. If this were a British music political action group, the number of PEL threads would certainly be appropriate. If this were a war and peace forum, the variety of Iraq threads would be marvelous. If I may paraphrase something that Big Mick has said many times, this is NOT a Folk Music Forum - it is a forum for lovers of folk music. Our emphasis is on folk music, but we are open to all topics that are of interest to people who love this music. To keep the folk people here we have to tweak a few things to keep the balance - that's all. this is not some major censorship campaign. We've talked of cascading menus. The Forum Menu would have general topics, and you'd click on a topic to reveal a page of related subtopics. One major problem with that is that the Forum Menu would always look the same, and it might break our community into subgroups with limited scope - the Iraq subgroup, the conspiracy theorists, the birthday revelers, the PEL activists, and the lyrics geeks. Within a very short time, the subgroups would fall out of communication with each other, and that would be a shame. I think that the eventual solution to our problem will be some system of cascading menus, but it has to be something that keeps our Forum Menu fresh and interesting. We're open to suggestions. The trouble is, some people seem to think that we are required to follow their suggestions precisely. We welcome suggestions and take them under consideration, but we just can't do everything everybody requests. Until we come up with a better solution, I'll be doing some mild thread consolidation to keep things in balance. I'd like to ask Mudcatters to help by simply taking a bit more care when you start a thread. Thanks. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rick Fielding Date: 01 Mar 03 - 04:05 PM Hi GUEST Karen. I can almost guarantee you that any process I might use to figure out who's calling me by my name (but not giving ME the same courtesy) will NOT be the same one that katlaughing uses. I don't know Ms. Laughing that well, but I DO know that she uses COMPUTER SMARTS to figure out who's who. I can still barely turn the damn thing on. I, on the other hand have figured out a LOT of things by simply reading the posts of the articulate ones....reading between the lines a lot (it's fun, not devious) and noticing that if one person seems to focus a lot on Minnesota issues, chances are they may LIVE in Minnesota. If they write consistently in a certain way, it's a breeze to figure out whether they're male or female....females use certain phrases that males don't. I hunted up another discussion group that I figured the person might have been interested in....and surprise...found the name Janet Ryan. Same style, same articulation, and same desire to shit disturb at times, ha ha! I did some checking in areas where the person might work (or HAVE worked) and where they might be a volunteer. A few things checked out. And of course I might be completely wrong! But who cares, it's not like I want to follow the person home....I just wanted a Name to call them, 'cause they called ME by my name. No big deal. Actually, even though JR has gotten on my case (serious shit disturbing I thought ha ha!) she's one hell of a writer, and makes her points as well as all but three others on this forum (IMO). My guess is that she and Mick would probably get along great over a pint! Cheers Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 01 Mar 03 - 04:22 PM General deduction, no hocus-pocus, no computer behind the scenes ISP thing or anything like that. Thanks, Mr. Fielding, I may be computer savvy, but not that savvy! If one reads enough threads, with comments of others who have experience with JR, elsewhere, one can see a pattern and figure it out. Oh, and it's not the same JR as the band you found, imo. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Pooka Date: 01 Mar 03 - 04:43 PM Cripes! Right Ons: Rick Fielding - "Joe does his best in a 'no win' situation. Most of this pallaver is just that. We do it for fun." Big Mick - "This is a friggin' forum, not the government of major countries. You act as if something bad is going to happen to your pet if you post wrong." Somebody's gotta make da Rules & Somebody can't be Everybody. If Joe the O. is a Dictator, he's a pretty goddam Benevolent one imho. Give it a break wouldyez. / "Peronalities", indeed :) Some of you guys are getting a little Eva Nascent around here. Peace & Love, Guess the Dreidled Guest |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jack the Sailor Date: 01 Mar 03 - 04:56 PM Thank you all for respecting me when I made my feelings known. It was a cathartic experience and I have done everything I possibly could to spare others the same public embarrassment. I've had my say. I am satisfied. Rick you are a great guy! You are one of the finest people I have ever met. Carol is the best thing that has ever happened to me. I've profusely thanked the Mudcat and I have thanked Max in person. Thanks BillD, I knew that you weren't attacking Carol, I just wanted to make sure that there was no miscommunication and that your intentions were made abundantly clear. For the record, I am not pissed. I am more than willing to support Joe in any decision that he may make. Its his job to moderate this forum, he is doing a good job, any changes he makes are his prerogative. Bottom Line: The mistake was mine, I take responsibility, I am sorry. Enough said? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,The Facilitator Date: 01 Mar 03 - 05:45 PM Almost everyone, no matter how they want to be steeped in anonymity, leaves clues about themselves eventually, even dreaded guests. This is beyond the basic information about most of us available to Joe and Jeff and Max. gargoyle decided too late to be just a name, and thus was relatively easy to locate. Knowing his name and location was a bit of an insurance policy, just in case he went beyond some of the low level harassing he used to do. Even though it has been possible for several years to call him on the phone or drive to his front door, no one has done this. He knows, however, that it is possible, and he has been relatively --I use the word 'relatively' intentionally-- well behaved. Dreaded guest and a couple of others ought to realize that it only takes a few clues to ascertain true identities, if necessary. Perhaps 'guests' in the Austin, Texas area might want to think harder about how they use this nice, friendly forum. My next post might include more than a general geographic area. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: harpgirl Date: 01 Mar 03 - 05:59 PM GUEST...the power to change Mudcat is and has been in your antisocial lap for a long time. Very many of the changes are the result of your antisocial manipulation of the forum. I for one, think you should be kept out completely. So don't whine about other people welding power. You're the martinet. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Art Thieme Date: 01 Mar 03 - 06:11 PM You people are arguing about nothing!! The forum moves on, and you sit here, stagnating. You are simply rearranging the chairs on the deck of this ship. It's not the Titanic---unless, of course, you insist on re-floating that old wreck. In other threads, like parallel universes, the forum plods along... Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 01 Mar 03 - 06:15 PM HeyaArt, check out the link I put in this thread...great interview and audio clips of Homer Ledford Wonderful musician! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Ralphie Date: 01 Mar 03 - 06:33 PM Hi Peeps... I'm wondering...Why does the name Janet Ryan ring several bells? If I'm barking up the wrong Redwood, I apologise. But, fundamentally, I agree with Art (Seems like a nice chap!) Whats that sound...? A Knock at the door in London town...?? OMIGOD!!!.... |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jeri Date: 01 Mar 03 - 06:39 PM She used to post to uk.music.folk. One of Ian Anderson's most favoritest people in da woild. Hey Ralphie, have you seen Les Barker's poem about the PEL issue: Dangerous Men With Concertinas? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Gareth Date: 01 Mar 03 - 06:48 PM Joe - B****r the arguments - just continue, you have my full support !!! Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Ralphie Date: 01 Mar 03 - 06:53 PM Jeri... Many Thanks..! Have never forgiven Mrs Ackroyd for biting my ankles many years ago. Sleep Well Ralphie (Barking... How does that work?) |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 01 Mar 03 - 07:43 PM Joe...re: cascading menus...I have advocated 'some' form of parallel forums for years. It is hard to predict the exact effect that would have, but I have both given and attended sings/parties where those who chose to chat and socialize rather than sing were politely told to do it in another room. In a large enough house, it is not only possible, but essential! What happened was that people tended to wander back & forth and the hard-core singers weren't seriously distracted. **IF** the Forum menu were clear that parallel 'rooms' were operating, much like Jon's Annex works, and *IF* seriously off topic posts and thread drift were directed 'over there', I think it might be useful. I know...some music threads include banter and remarks, much as real sings get noisy interruptions temporarily, as folks react to each other....but wouldn't it be just as easy...or easier...for you to ahem 'edit' things if major distractions were sent somehwere else?? what we are fighting here is human nature...and I suspect it would be a bit easier to "give the boys a racetrack" rather than trying to prohibit them from racing up & down Main Street (yeah, I sometimes race MY engine, too) |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 01 Mar 03 - 08:27 PM I am sorry but all this talk of battles over turf is the paranoid perception of a few blinkered souls. As Art pointed out, the forum continues. It is oblivious to one person's idea of 'balance' being forced upon those who have the responsibility for any balance, the posters. Any attempt to shape or 'control' the natural balance of the various contributions, justified by references to trouble-makers, will fail anyway as the vast majority of the posters are clearly just getting on with posting. As I would be doing if this non musical 'navel-gazing' thread had not been started. Can these be kept off the main forum and be confined to the help forum where those that find this stuff interesting can talk about it endlessly, and everyone else can plod on with the business of the forum, the contributions? There still has been no exact problem identified, just vague references to balance or mess and the same tired old bashing of our guests and even more threats. I suspect many others like me, like the bloody forum as it is and see no need for censorship, except the limits we place on ourselves. How about a test to see if there really is a problem? For the next two months or so, no tweaks, no mild consolidations etc, and then let us see if the contributors generally notice any difference or there is any resulting inbalance? How about giving this a try first? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,Karen Date: 01 Mar 03 - 09:02 PM Rick Fielding, for a guy who claims not to really care and not have any computer tracking skills, you seem to have gone to some length to track this person down online. Looks like light stalking to me. Maybe I'm the one being paranoid now, but as a female poster, the information you are giving out about this person is troubling to me. How many other guests and members are being tracked by Max, Joe, and or the Mudcat clones? Problem I'm having with both your & katlaughing's response is, where did you come up with this person's name in the first place? It had to come from somewhere, and neither of you said where or how you got the person's name from, so what are we to think? That tells me someone here is Mudcat is responsible for putting this person, who appears only once in the archives, on a list of posters "to be watched". Well, how do regular folks like Rick Fielding get this information, and is the passing around of information about posters to this website routinely given out when they become "a problem"? Something just doesn't seem right to me about this whole Janet Ryan thing. Now Ralphie too mentions the name. Where is everyone here getting the information, and are the "right" members privvy to this sort of private information about people posting here? Why do a few members and clones here have it in for this person anyway? Has this person been sanctioned elsewhere on the internet (perhaps in the other group Rick mentioned)? Has this person been personally identified by Mudcat management, their ISP contacted, etc. for doing something seriously destructive here? Or is this, as I fear, just some negative "smoke the guest out of the hole" thing here at Mudcat? Whatever it is, it is getting VERRY CREEPY if these are the lengths people around here are going to, just to out the identity of a poster to apparently wishes to remain anonymous. Considering that this forum does allow anyone who posts here to remain anonymous, these attempts to "expose" someone's identity seems very wrong to me. It also makes me wonder what other information about posters is being swapped through Mudcat backchannels. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 02 Mar 03 - 01:21 AM guest karen: As for your statement earlier: "Or is the problem that Mudcat is under new management without our being told?" Do you honestly think you have a right to know if this is true or not? Do you honestly think that you have any rights on the Mudcat? Also: You aren't paranoid, someone may be hunting you down. But not from the place you think . . . . As for swapping "secret" information - check your doctor's office, your bank and your local DMV - look into how much of your private life they're SELLING to other companies. Run a spyware check on your computer - if you've downloaded music from the Internet, you might have also downloaded programs that allow someone to see the entire contents of your computer. Next time you fly in the U.S. think about how the airlines are gearing up to do credit and bank account checks on you to see if you are a potential terrorist. Or - you can worry about a simple little discussion website where no one really gives a damn about your "secret" information. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 02 Mar 03 - 01:27 AM Once again, I tend to agree with Art, with the exception that I think that each of these treads is funny, funny, funny. I've been here at Mudcat for over 4 years now and laugh everytime I see another thread about this stuff: Mudcat is running downhill The owners / managers are taking away rights, "Guests" don't get any respect There's a secret Clique There's a not-so-secret Clique Thank you all for amusing me. I'm off the the Guinness thread. Mudcat Folks! (cause 'Mudcat Rocks!' doesn't seem to make a lot of sense . . . ) pax yall |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: winterchild Date: 02 Mar 03 - 04:06 AM Joe, given a difficult situation, you do the best you can, and you do good work. I think lots of people are getting more upset than they need to, but what do I know, I'm an Aspie (see Apserger's thread). I do know that I'd HATE it if fewer of all of these marvellous musicians hung around in MudCat. Definitely. 'nuf said WinterChild |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest Date: 02 Mar 03 - 08:44 AM God you people are whiners. ... Get a grip. You gutless people cancel my threads, cancel posts like this, bitch because not everyone wants to discuss Woody Guthrie's last proctology report and absolutely wet yourselves when it comes to practicing freedom of speech. Gutless bunch of whiners for the most part who are too stupid to realize your 'liberal' ideology is going to get your ass fried in a concentration camp. I've been pointing out for over a year on lots of forums that GWBush is a mass-murdering serial killer, and I write my representatives about it and call in to talk shows about it and hand out tapes and literature about it and couldn't care less what any of you think about it. But you make it so much FUN to come here and lambast you that it's just hard to stay away. I might have paid just one single visit to this place if Joe Offer or one of the 'drones' hadn't deleted my first thread. I checked in, saw how the place worked and posted my catch-all political diatribe painting the world as we now see it, but a censor decided to delete it. Gauntlet thrown down, so I resolved to BLUDGEON you folks with political themes. Rub your faces in it. Most of you are so liberal...well that's WHY you hate Bush. Because you're liberal. You have NO IDEA that you've been brainwashed into viewing the world through a phony left-right paradigm. Marx and Engels were COMMISSIONED 150 years ago by the royal families to create a new paradigm because labor was starting to figure out how the elites worked. So a new system was created and you still believe it's just the natural way of things. I tried to lay this out but one of 'the drones' deleted the entry and you people have had me pestering you ever since. THAT is the major problem with your censorship here. Leave well enough alone and don't piss people off and people like me will lose interest in your smug little o-zone. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: belfast Date: 02 Mar 03 - 09:17 AM There are no less than three threads currently open on the subject of "Raglan Road". And this is a song that has been talked to death in previous threads. I'm totally in favour of some proliferation control. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 02 Mar 03 - 10:41 AM Look at who started this thread. Look at who started the "Cut and Paste Prohibitions" thread. We do see the same people shit stirring this forum over and over and over ad nauseum. But who are the shit stirrers, really? Here is a nice story for your Sunday amusement, about an idyllic folk heaven called "Mudcat Cafe". First this guy... http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame79.html Is sent forth by these folks... http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame20.html and a number of these, operating through the Mudcat PM shadow forum, who once the insult is passive agressively posted about member so and so, apologizes profusely... http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame42.html So The Beloved Admin starts a thread just like this one, which begins a reactionary chain of events among the hoi polloi members and guests, by lobbing one of these babies: a highly predictable forum explosive, triggered by terms used in the original post by Beloved Admin like "anonymous guest(s)" or "PEL" or "Iraq"... http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame65.html Why do they do it? Some say, "because they can". Others surmise they do it in order to maintain their grip on power at Mudcat, when feeling threatened by newcomers, or those who refuse to recognize their power and place in the Sacred Hierarchy. Whatever the motive of the moment, the game being played is Forum Divide and Conquer. It is a cinch for Beloved Admin, The Royals, and the Whisperers, because they can't lose, and the hoi polloi are, of course, powerless to stop them. Sort of like George Bush lording it over the rest of the world. So without lifting another typing finger, Beloved Admin and the Mudcat Royals are able to bring in the usual reinforcements to circle the wagons... http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame38.html http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame3.html http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame35.html Please note that most of the above are mui macho types (regardless of gender), and they all respond when they hear their leaders' Call to War on Enemy Guests. Some of them are DYING (for the good of their egos--oops! I mean forum) to fall on their swords so they can be seen as one of these... http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame64.html acting in high minded service to protect these poor, vulnerable Mudcat folk (genders interchangeable here)... http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame27.html http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame6.html The ensuing battle often results in a number of highly respected Mudcat members taking this sort of a turn, when their absolute power ends up, well...many a Mudcatter has seen how folks like this end up... http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame32.html Once the battle reaches this fever pitch, finally, we see this... http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame49.html The Sacred Hierarchy, for a brief, shining moment, feels morally cleansed. And then, as Art Thieme says, The Forum Moves On. Until the Special Ones again feel the need to cleanse themselves, renewing the process once again. And again. And happily, ever after. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 02 Mar 03 - 10:55 AM dreaded guest..freedom of speech means you can say it somewhere, not that you can say anything you please anywhere you please. Write a book and publish it....start your own web blog....go shout from a soapbox in the park, just don't presume to use what is meant to be a shared forum among friends for your own personal podium. If you were a 'person' who traded songs, recipes, jokes and stories of you kids & cats, and also tossed out opinions on the world sometimes, you would be MUCH more tolerated, even if considered a bit weird for the tenor and breadth of your 'concerns'. I sometimes host 'open sings' at my house...published in a newsletter, and open to anyone who wants to pop by...and at times we stand around and gossip and chat about the world, too! But if anyone came to those sessions, month after month, wearing a disguise, and did NOTHING but exhort us to pay attention to his latest political theory...and castigated us when we complained....well, I, being the host, would have thrown his butt out. Max and Joe, being the hosts, have the right to do the same here...it is just more difficult, and THEY are more tolerant than I am. This is just more wasted effort on my part, as you have shown that you simply do not care! You have an agenda, and you intend to keep being pushy and combative and twisting the arguement to make it sound as though YOU are the one who is being inconvenienced when an occasional excess is deleted or moved! You don't get it...you don't WANT to get it...you want YOUR way in someone else's house, and that is patently offensive! You mentioned before that you had been banned from other forums in the past...I wonder why..... I am trying to talk myself into just dropping out of this discussion and allowing Joe and Max, etc to deal with it as they will...maybe I will even succeed. *wry grin* |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rick Fielding Date: 02 Mar 03 - 11:56 AM Dear "GUEST KAREN": The last thing in the world I wanna do is make someone feel creepy, so please accept my apology. I absolutely assure you that I have no "inner Mudcat or Computer info", and even if I did, I have so little interest in that kind of thing, I'd quickly forget it. Nope...a couple of times a GUEST really took over some interesting threads, where a civil discussion was going on. They manipulated them in a way that made them very ugly, and changed their whole meaning. Their skills in that area are quite astounding. They even addressed ME several times by MY name, without offering me the same courtesy. THAT's why I decided to even things out a bit. Had they NOT used my name (in a negative way) I'd hardly have noticed. The sleuthing I did took a very short time, and used my own intuition far more than computer stuff. Considering that I've been using my real name, my wife's, and our Toronto Ontario location since I joined the Mudcat (and was victim of a Flamer's 'name" stealing for a while) maybe I'm a tad more sensitive about this kind of thing than some. The name "JR" DID come from some other discussion group (and I honestly can't remember which one....perhaps a British one) and the rest was easy....a really good writer is no problem to find.......if ya know HOW to read. I do. But.....anyway Karen, I'm sorry if it made you feel 'creepy', I assure you there's nothing personal, and it was a response to an anonymous poster turning it personal with ME. Cheers Rick Fielding P.S. Now let's talk about music! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 02 Mar 03 - 12:11 PM Basically, though, the responsibility for the forum is shared by Max, Jeff, and Joe - and Joe does most of the moderation of the Forum. My mistake. I am not well versed in who wears what titles behind the scenes, so I assumed that anyone who works behind the scenes and isn't Joe or Max, is a clone. I stand corrected. So to further address what I said in my last post, I have not had any behind the scenes experiences with Jeri, so I don't really know what her strengths and weaknesses are. But I do know Jeff and Joe well enough to know some of their strengths and weaknesses. I find that one area where Jeff particularly shines is his ability to handle difficult situations with compassion. I know that Jeff is a brilliant tech guy, but I think his people skills are a great asset to the Mudcat as well. I hope he gets the credit he deserves for that. No, you wouldn't want hard-and-fast rules if you got them. Perhaps you're right, Joe. Maybe hard and fast rules are a bad idea. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest Date: 02 Mar 03 - 12:53 PM My last post has been edited. It read better in the original. A lot of you feel free to criticize and call names but don't realize that's a two-way street. Freedom of speech will cease to exist, Bill, if it's not used. Now. Use it now or you will never be able to again. Rumsfeld, Cheney, the Bushes and Clinton are sociopathic killers. Your television is their primary control tool. 50% of Americans have been taught to believe Saddam Hussein was behind Sept 11. 50% of Americans will be taught that Arab-Americans ASKED to be placed in concentration camps...'for their own safety'. Because of the news reports on the box. Then your group will be next. Yesterday there were war gatherings locally, pro and con. The bit of news I saw contained a one-minute segment. Showed a bunch of people in suits holding American flags while one older man said 'we support our president and troops'. Next, the news showed the 'anti-war' group. Nothing but beards and incessant bongo music and butt-shaking. No flags, no red white and blue, no suits. And since none of them mentioned 'the troops', the implication was that the anti-war people are AGAINST the troops. I refuse to believe America supports this war, but we're about to reach a quarter million troops out of country...fow what purpose? And what is in store that's so bad millions of new concentration camp beds have been built on American soil? There was never any real spending on Civil Defense when THAT was supposed to be a real problem, so why now, when there is a vague terrorist problem, do we see them stringing concertina wire in order to deal with it? GWBush knew about and aided the 9-11 terrorists. So did Bill Clinton. And it was just the kick-off for the upcoming slaughter of Americans. Sharp eye. Personal attacks are prohibited. If you cross the line, you get edited. If you want to attack me, that's OK (generally). I have thick skin. If you want to launch a personal attack attack any other individual, it's not. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,disgusted Date: 02 Mar 03 - 01:56 PM I resent being held hostage to this "Dreaded Guest"'s paranoid psychosis. Why doesn't someone do something about it? It has gone far enough! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: *daylia* Date: 02 Mar 03 - 02:22 PM Disgusted, I don't like "paranoid psychosis" either, but I'm sure that our DG does not consider him/herself, or his/her opinions either paranoid or psychotic. C'est la vie! However, the only one holding me 'hostage' to the opinions of others is myself, as long I choose to continue spending time and energy on it. Which I did, until I'd worked out my own way of dealing with it satisfactorily. Now it doesn't bother - or attract - me anymore (well, not much anyway). I think that when all's said and done, no-one can "do something about it" except oneself, for oneself. But I do appreciate Joe's efforts at organizing the place via thread consolidation! Just my 2 cents worth - daylia |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest Date: 02 Mar 03 - 02:33 PM There is not a thing that's paranoid or psychotic about my last post, 'disgusted'. That's your fear speaking. You have been programmed to discount the unpleasant. Why did FEMA complete 3 million new fenced-in bed spaces in January? Why did Clinton AND Bush threaten to fire FBI field agents investigating the bin Ladens before Sept 11? I'm curious to see how long I can long my posting here will be allowed. There's lots of talk about non-censorship, but there's also talk about grants for the site. All grants involve govt sponsorship (either through direct contributions or write-off status), so the govt WILL claim rights on this site if push comes to shove. So how far do the principles espoused by the 'clones' extend? I expect the clones have gotten in a bit deeper with me than they planned, but that's what they get for physically trying to re-shape the message. And my message is simple. The U.S. govt has been seized by organized crime. We are being terrorized daily by the people responsible for Sept 11 (the Bush Company's CIA), and America is being financially destroyed so it can be conquered. I could REALLY get into this stuff with charts and graphs and govt websites if you want, but then you might have to actually DO something to protect your family when the full realization of what's going on hits you. And by the way, Free Will is a fact of life. No one is 'holding you hostage'. That's a hundred years of socialist programming speaking. You've been taught that someone else needs to take care of you because you don't have the ability, the skill, the backbone. Which is EXACTLY the way your overlords want you to be. You want everything 'fixed' for you, but the solution here is to just not fix your eyes on my postings. I use a consistent handle so you can avoid me, so what IS the problem? Oh...I looked at the earlier post with all the links (M. Reed) and it is hilarious. That's one of the funniest things I've ever seen on the web. I think I'm a Jeckyll and Hyde, and I bet a lot of you recognized yourselves in it. Thanks 'GUEST' for posting that. Really, really cool. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Lepus Rex Date: 02 Mar 03 - 02:55 PM Well, Joe, it looks like your new policy isn't working. Not very popular, either. It's made more than just anonymous GUESTs feel uncomfortable/unwelcome. Told ya. (monkey-cock and all that) :) Hey, Rick, what is your real name? :o TDR, while I don't mind your theories, you're distracting from your point by listing them here. ---Lepus Rex Thank you very much for your opinion, Mr. Rex. It will be disregarded. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,disgusted Date: 02 Mar 03 - 04:46 PM I want to avoid you, so why don't you drop dead? We'd all be better off! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Lepus Rex Date: 02 Mar 03 - 04:51 PM Disregard it if you like, Joe. With slight adjustments, it's the opinion of others, as well. You're not saying that you're going to disregard the opinions of your, uh, subjects, are you? :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Ralphie Date: 02 Mar 03 - 06:30 PM With respect to all parties...Guests, Members, Joe, Clones (various), Trolls, Flamers, and Utter Bastards...This is not a fun thread anymore. Will someone shut it down? PLEASE! Not meaning to offend, (But probably will) Ralphie....and Yes, you can have my National Insurance Number if you like. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest Date: 02 Mar 03 - 07:59 PM Yes, Lepus Rex, it IS a lot of time investment to review the same fundamentals over and over and over, and I've pretty much had my fill of it. I made my points repeatedly here just like I'm currently doing on another site...a conservative site. The time I've spent between the two could have been used to blast through a hundred other forums and spread my core message, but some groups DO cry out for a little extra education. Mudcatters aren't as mule-headed as the group of Nazis I'm also arguing with at the moment, but resistance to change seems to be a common denominator. Whether you folks know it or not, we are at war. Not with the people who have 'terrorist' superimposed over their faces on your television, but with the people who control the television programming. Dig around through my posts marked 'The Dreaded Guest' or 'The Hated Guest' and I'll lecture you ad nauseum on the topic. The govts of the world which have strong central banks are controlled by organized crime, and that criminal organization is bent on dominating the world. And we stand in their way...some with more resistance than others. I'll leave you with a good 'conspiracy theory'. I haven't mentioned this here, but Saudi Arabia is running out of oil. And they are terrified. They've kissed the ass of the U.S. for 55 years, and their neighbors hate them for it. The bin Ladens are rivals of the Saud family, and the bin Ladens are business partners with the Bushes. All indications are that after the U.S. has a quarter-million troops or more in Iraq, Iran will be the next target. Then into Saudi Arabia. Why do you think the CIA planted so many Saudis on the hijacked airliners? So the Saudis know how the Bushes treat their ex business partners (Noriega, Saddam Hussein), and they don't know whether to cash in their chips now or hope they're just mis-reading the Bushes. The Saudis could bankrupt America tomorrow if they withdrew their investments in this country, so maybe that's the way the Bushes plan to destroy our economy...threaten Saudi Arabia with invasion so they destroy our banking system. But that's just a theory based on previous trends and indicators. Anyway, I will now make a folder containing bookmarks to the threads I've posted on and come back from time to time as a NEWBIE and resurrect the old discussions. That'll allow me to just reassert my points with a click and a couple of sentences. Why do any more than that? Y'all have been cautioned and I've been exhausted. I may come back tomorrow and post another 'conspiracy theory', but it's too sensitive to get into right now. Might cause undue distress, since it's too late to do anything about it. But it's a good one. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Mark Cohen Date: 02 Mar 03 - 09:17 PM Dreaded Guest, I agree with you. Well, not everything. Still, unlike many people here, I think that much of what you've been saying has validity. However, I'm getting very tired of listening to you say it. It seems to me that you're alienating many more people than you're convincing. Maybe you could find a more productive method. (I don't have any good answers, just like I didn't back in the Christic Institute days. If I think of something, I'll try to let you know.) Now, then. I was happy with what Joe was doing, until he added an editorial comment to one of my posts that squashed a fairly clever joke (even suckered 'Spaw!). But I can live with that. I think he did that because he was feeling defensive about the reaction to what he's been doing. But he can probably live with that. In my view, this is all a tempest in a teapot. I just counted 58 threads on the Forum main page that relate to music and would appear to have general interest. That's plenty for me. I stopped reading the PEL posts months ago, and I dearly miss the Drumcree threads (seems like I killed one of them with what I thought was another pretty clever joke...oh,well). I like the forum the way it is, and I have liked it for 4 years, even through its "problems." It was a welcome addition to my life at a time when I was under extreme stress and isolated from friends and music, and I still enjoy it even as my life has improved. I'm with Shambles on this one (nice to see you here again, Sham). My vote is for Joe to spend more time with his wonderful new wife and family and less time worrying about how many threads there are. Aloha, Mark It WAS a clever joke, Mark. I just figured there were too many touchy people around here who wouldn't get it; and then I'd be in trouble again, mistakenly accused of blatantly censoring your post. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 02 Mar 03 - 10:18 PM ahhhhh After a long day, I check in at my favorite site and read the continuing saga of this thread - one of the funniest around here for a long time. First of all, I love that it took many posts over a couple days for the "guest" - and to me all guests are one person, until I'm proven wrong - to notice it and open their kind heart to share their opinions (too often NOT shared) with the rest of us. Secondly, I love the fact that people think that each time Joe starts a thread like this, or says something like this in a thread, he his surprised that people innundate the Mudcat with complaints Thridly, I still don't understand why all those who hate this place so much, don't just leave? Funny, funny, funny Oh - if and when we go to war - I sincerely hope that everyone who is in favor of it will join the army and put their life where their comments are. My guess that won't happen anymore than Lee Greenwood didn't enlist even though he fervently wished to do just that in that tripe-ridden song he so ably sang a decade ago. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Art Thieme Date: 02 Mar 03 - 11:44 PM Joe, I'm still with ya. Art |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Mark Cohen Date: 03 Mar 03 - 04:36 AM Oh, dear, oh Joe Offer's got no courage in him! (insert silly smiley face thing here) Come on, Joe, you have to stop "figuring" so much. You see, I think that's part of the problem---"they"'ve got to you. So what if they mistakenly accuse you of blatantly censoring my post? That's their problem, not yours. Unless you need a recommendation from Mudcat members to get into college...which somehow I doubt. Relax! The 'Cat will be what it will be, and will become what it will become, and if you try to push it, and keep worrying about whether people will like you, you'll just wear yourself out. I like you. Lots of people like you. And some people don't. BFD. You've been doing a good job...but I think that by trying to "keep the Forum from degenerating" you're making your job much harder than it has to be. The Forum won't degenerate: too many people appreciate it too much. And even if it does...we'll still keep making music, and we'll find some way to connect. It's too much fun not to. Aloha (and I mean that sincerely), Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 03 - 10:07 AM Joe should listen to his friends. I thought he was going to get a life when he got married? Max did it, and Joe could do it too if he got over his control and power issues here. And stopped listening to his whispering clones giving him "advice". |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Mar 03 - 11:41 AM Well, actually, I'm retired and my wife works. So while my wife is working, I have plenty of time to be here and bask in your chutzpah, O Nameless One. Or give you a hard time, one of the two. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 03 - 12:24 PM For chrissake Joe, ban me, but don't continue to manipulate, punish, and poison the forum with this vendetta. It is becoming increasingly obvious to at least some of your supporters (as it has been for some time to all of your detractors) that you, Jeri, catspaw, katlaughing, and Big Mick (the clones who have personally identified themselves, even though you said their identities would not be revealed) are on the absolute wrong track with this "anti-guest pogrom" as Lepus Rex so aptly described it. Yet, your little group keeps hunkered down in the bunkers, deluding yourselves into believing that disrupting and censoring the forum is a good way to get back at me. This isn't high school Joe. You and the clones look like idiots, and are sewing some serious seeds of discontent that really can destroy the forum if you continue down this road of "controlling" posters, posts, and threads, and wielding power because you can. All kinds of people have said "what problem"? Your justifications sound like the Bush administration's justifications for going to war against Saddam. Some of us know better. We know that such an amorphous campaign gets undertaken when there are personal grudge matches involved. If you are going to do the job of forum moderator well, you can't allow your personal feelings about posters, no matter how much you dislike their posting habits, or what they've said to you and your friends, to make you so reactionary and unbalanced. And to be messing with the two most important musically related political discussions--PEL and war with Iraq--in the forum in recent years is just inexcusable. People are using this place as a means of political organizing, it is true. But it is political organizing being done by politically oriented folk musicians. You can't separate the two, and declare that the two subjects your forum participants feel the most passionate about, are going to be "limited" because you think those people post too prolifically. So what if they are posting prolifically? It is what has made this site not only enjoyable, but an important space for discussion and debate in the online folk and blues music community. This is one of the only places online where folk and blues musicians can come to discuss these crucially important issues. Remember Joe, these issues are being discussed here, because these are the issues that matter deeply to a core group of politically oriented folk and blues musicians. You should be taking great pride in the fact that they have chosen this forum to engage in their discussions and debates. Not ostracize and bully and demean them for it. If you and the clones don't get that, then you really do need to step aside, and turn the reigns over to people who aren't so invested in their petty personal shit as you guys seem to be, who can moderate the forum with an open hand, rather than a closed fist. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 03 Mar 03 - 01:43 PM You know what, JR WAMSO Matriot GUEST karen, samantha, etc? Your protestations would have some credibility if you weren't posting under aliases all over the place and acting like you are everything from a man to a Russian having problems with English, on and on. Of course you want Joe to turn over the reins. That is because he is getting to you and he is on the right track. Your posting above is another attempt to all of a sudden seem "the voice of reason who just cares about The Mudcat" while simultaneously posting destructive phoney crap on other threads. I find it to be the ultimate irony that the reason you can hold Joe, and the rest of the people who volunteer time and money to keep this place in existence, is because we identify ourselves. I wonder how it would be if I exposed your phoney identity crap anonymously? My guess is that you would cry and complain about not knowing who your accuser was. I could care less about your anonymity. Your motives are what trouble me. Your motives are to seek attention, be destructive, and to manipulate nice folks. It is the latter of these that is most troubling. Because these folks want to see the best in people, and are gentle, and use reason, you can take advantage of their decent nature. I have been fighting folks who do this shit my entire life. They are bullies, and you are a bullie. Your game is disgusting. I believe very strongly that Joe, Max and Jeff should follow your advice so you can call yourself a martyr in other places. They won't, because they are wise enough not to play your game. But know this. I would. And Mudcat would be better off for it. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 03 Mar 03 - 01:49 PM In life you have to make choices. It is not possibly to have your cake and eat it. It is not possible to be 'one of the lads' if you also wish to exert power and pass your personal judgement upon them. Can those with the power, make their choice please? To make their personal comments and express their opinions in the threads with all of us, or to place little coloured personal comments, after taking action or when passing judgement upon us. Perhaps possibly the very best choice they can make is to do neither but to go away and leave the rest of us to it? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 03 - 02:10 PM Your blind spot, Big Mick, is thinking that anonymity is the issue. Hence your, and the merry band of clones obsession with playing the "smoke the guest out of the anonymity hole" game. If anything will destroy Mudcat, it will be this obsession. Not me or any other guest that posts anonymously and with different handles, which I have always admitted to doing. As have other guests. I don't know what the lot of you think would be accomplished by "exposing" me. Never have been able to figure that one out. The "big issue" to you is obviously the fact that I don't use a consistent identity at Mudcat. That isn't an issue to me. I have no idea if my "true identity" is an issue to most posters here. But I'm guessing that most posters and lurkers here really don't give a rat's ass who I am, just as they don't give a rat's ass as to who Forum Lurker or Dreaded Guest or The Pooka or Gargoyle "really are". I mean c'mon, it ain't like I'm Chelsea, Bill, or Hillary Clinton Big Mick, so just how fascinating of a detail can my "real identity" be to people? If Joe and the clones could actually get their egos around the fact that they are a tiny minority of posters here who DO want to "out" anonymous and pseudonymous posters, Mudcat would be a much better place. Your obsession is every bit as sick as those who attempt to "out" gays and lesbians they don't like. Which is really, really sick. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 03 - 02:29 PM BTW, I suppose we may be making some progress when Joe and Big Mick admit to engaging in a personal vendetta here. The Shambles is, once again, dead on when he says: "To make their (Joe and clones) personal comments and express their opinions in the threads...or to place little coloured personal comments, after taking action or when passing judgement upon us..." I know it isn't just me Joe and clones are after--they've also made some of the PEL activist/members, and members who post to the political threads, targets of their cleansing campaign too. They are now censoring and hassling anyone and everyone in this thread "shakedown" who has made it onto their Mudcat blacklist. Some of us remember how a blacklist works too, Joe and the clones. And those people are now daring to speak out against you and your closed fist tactics. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,p_m_a@hotmail.com Date: 03 Mar 03 - 02:29 PM I guess Mr Gall is saying if you dont agree with him "shut up". mmmm, now let me see...which country are we in now? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 03 Mar 03 - 02:33 PM Nice try, but you really miss the point. And your protestations to the contrary don't ring true. There is only one thing that you said that is true. And that is that anonymity isn't the real issue. It is behaviour. When you attempt to act as though you have been on the up and up, you just look pathetic. It is not that you are anonymous per se, it is your actions that attempt to deceive done under the guise of anonymity. Look at your posts above as "karen". You act like you are a different person trying to defend. How about the samantha thread in which you attempt to change the way you write and spell, use of small "i" and all that. These are attempts to see if you can fool folks into thinking there is this huge problem, when the fact is that there are only a few posing as several apiece. Your motives come through loud and clear. And they are destructive and self serving in my opinion. You are right. Who you are isn't as important as what your actions are. And as long as I am able I intend to see that you get credit for them. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Amos Date: 03 Mar 03 - 02:38 PM Jesus, you get tedious. The issue never has been anonymity. Never. It has always been the insidious vitriol of your posts, which you deliver from anonymity, and the fact that your extreme instability of person, which is dramatized by the fact that you won't use even a token in the forum with any consistency, MUTIPLIES the distructive impact of your venemous communication. That is the only issue anyone has had. Your tactics are designed to destroy communication, while others prefer a forum which nourishes it. Your associating this preference with censorship, rfacism, and whatever other black nightmares your overheated and paranoid imagination comes up with is just ludicrous. You miss the point over, and over, and over again. No one CARES who you really are. All anyone cares about is that you stop peeing in the soup with your perfervid negativity. Your intentional efforts to discourage, frighten, and propogate uncertainty, doubt and overwhelming fear are BORING. I ain't saying this agin. A |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:02 PM You are absolutely right about this being about behavior, Big Mick. But it is about the behavior of Joe and the clones, not mine. By threatening to "out" me by publishing my private information publicly in the forum, you have proven what many already suspect anyway. That Joe and the clones are grossly abusing their power by passing out private information about certain posters they don't like to a privleged few Mudcat members, while insisting they aren't doing any such thing. That is YOUR big lie. If you are willing to publish my private information in the forum, e, chances are very high you will do it to anyone you don't like. Therein lies the problem--that slippery slope I keep talking about. Vengeance won't win this one for Joe and the clones, because it never can. Which is why Joe and the current clones likely need to step aside. It is clear they are unbalanced, reactionary, and blinded by their desire for vengeance. They've started to target other posters who annoy them, as a smokescreeen. To try and divert attention away from what their real agenda is here. Which just so happens to be petty and personal--PEL, political threads, and members and guests they personally dislike. They've proved they will go to almost any length to "get to" me. So what lengths do you suppose Joe and the clones will go to to "get to" the rest of you they don't like? Go ahead and "make an example of me", Big Mick. Go right ahead and publish all the private information you've got to "prove" my identity. The only fraud you will be exposing is your own. You will then have provided proof to everyone here, that you are all using private information of posters you have targeted, and handing it around the Mudcat inner circle. And that if anyone steps out of line, disagrees with you, pisses you off, that they'll be next. No single poster, whether member or guest, has the power to destroy this forum. Only Max, Joe, Jeff and the clones have that power. Threatening to expose private information about ANY poster to the forum is a gross abuse of power. But the fact that Joe and the clones are this tempted to do it, should be setting off peoples' alarm bells. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:09 PM Your motives are to seek attention, be destructive, and to manipulate nice folks He's sure manipulated a bunch of people into being destructive and goaded them ito giving him attention. :) |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:11 PM Never said I would publish your private information. Your problem is that there are too many people that know me personally. They know I wouldn't do that and that I am not threatening you personally. I reiterate that. But what I will do is see to it that you get credit for everything that you are doing. No more hiding behind the identities if I can help it. I have only used one personal handle, and that is so you would know and I have never shared with a soul here why I use it. And I don't intend to. I told you before, some months ago, that I believe we have more in common than not. I also pointed out that a number of the things you post about topics that interest you are excellent posts. I think you know that there are any number of posts that I have not responded to as they were very good. But when you get on these manipulative, destructive threads.........when you attack a man like Joe, who is honorable and spends hours and hours trying to keep this thing going, when you attack Max when he has sacrificed much, personally, and financially, .................. I am just not going to let that go on unchecked. As I said, as long as I am able, you will not do this without everyone knowing who is doing it. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:18 PM (Now THIS is a 'conspiracy theory'...one which unfortunately came to mind after reading two or three of the press releases from the illegitimate US govt): WHY I SKIPPED MARDI GRAS THIS YEAR Some of the organized criminals running the world are lunatics and occultists. The Bushes, for example. They worship stone owls and belong to the Skull and Bones society and put store by the Illuminati garbage. And to the Illuminatis, numerology is a big thing. And today is an important date numerologically...March 3. 03-03-03. Meanwhile, New Orleans was just signed over to the new American Gestapo...the Office of Homeland Security. The first large city in the U.S. to go through this process. The areas of city management the Gestapo will IMMEDIATELY take control of are as follows: - Police, Fire, Office of Emergency and Preparedness. All formerly reported to the Chief Administrative Office. - Emergency Medical Services, which formerly reported to the Health Department. - Orleans Parish Communications District (911 Center) New Orleans...first city to surrender to the Feds This will mean CIA can be inserted into what are traditionally local aspects of policing...inserted just as a MOB of partiers descends on New Orleans. And knowing the Bushes have a fetish for numerology and the occult, I wonder if the date 3-3-3 isn't just too exciting for them to pass up. They have also planted the most bogus CIA story I've ever seen regarding 'proxy' terrorists: Groundwork for blaming Americans So, all these things taken together make me think the following could occur... On March 3 (today), the CIA might release a bioweapon at Mardi Gras. The vector is ideal...tens or maybe hundreds of thousands infected before they return home to incubate. Ebola has an 8-day-til-death period, I believe, and that was in the news last week cropping up in the Congo. So something like ebola could be released on the Bushes magical date of 3-3-3, and then a 'domestic' group could be blamed. Some patsy would step forward and claim the terrorist act for the KKK or the 'militia' or the 'Baptists' (the stated motivation would be racial, since New Orleans is so mixed-race), and then secret arrests of white Americans as 'domestic terrorists' would begin. The patsy would claim he was working on direct orders from Saddam or bin Laden, too, in order to get the Europeans off the pot on the war. Also, in order to piss off the Muslim world, Christians are being urged to 'pray' today at 3:33PM. Pray so "the armies of heaven will push back the powers of darkness in the Middle East." So, if assaults against Iraq are launched today, it would sure look to a Muslim on the other side of the world like the decadent, occult Christian churches in America were praying for victory: Pray at 3:33 on 3-3-3 Anyway, I thought y'all might want to see a TRUE 'conspiracy theory' before the fact...one that will have been proven or disproven in a couple of weeks. I have no knowledge that any of this stuff is going to occur, but you learn how to read the stories the mass-murderers feed to the newspapers. In writing, it's called 'foreshadowing'. You don't just spring a surprise on the audience, you make them aware of the possibility of an action first. "If a gun is over the fireplace in Act 2, it will be used in Act 3". So the press has now reported on ebola and 'proxy' terrorists, etc, so the stuff I described above (outlandish though it may seem) won't be UNEXPECTED if it DOES occur. Believe me, I hope I'm wrong about it, but I passed on the chance to go to Mardi Gras this year. And I don't view this as paranoia so much as eternal vigilance, which is unpleasant when you're watching your country being reduced to a place where an unelected occultist has set up a 'shadow govt' in bunkers while he drives the nation to insolvency and pushes the world to the brink of WW3. All this has been done either for A) money and power or, B) reasons of occultic lunacy. If B, then the lunatics in charge couldn't launch their bioattack at a more 'favorable' time than 3:33 today. Which would probably be Eastern time, since Eastern time was used when they bombed the WTC in '93, the Murrah bldg in OK City and the WTC in '01. Each event at 9AM eastern. 9-9-9. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:23 PM Oh, so the clones really do have access to posters' private information, Big Mick? Gee, Joe keeps insisting you clones aren't privvy to that information. So which is it now? Do clones have access to posters' private information or not? You can't expose anyone Big Mick, unless you have access to that information yourself, or are given it by Joe or Max or who ever the hell else is being given access to posters' private information. "I am just not going to let that go on unchecked. As I said, as long as I am able, you will not do this without everyone knowing who is doing it." Tsk, tsk Big Mick. That sounds like you are threatening, to me. It also means you have to have access to IPs, etc. to "know" who is posting under what handle, in which post, to a specific thread. That is precisely the information Joe keeps stating you, as a clone, are NOT given access to, so who is lying here? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:31 PM Come to think of it, I think the old quote about foreshadowing was more like, "If you're going to use a gun in Act 3, put it over the fireplace in Act 2". Implying more of a backwards chain of events, so when your mind works backwards after the deed, you are able to find your own 'explanation' and put the matter to rest. Without the foreshadowing, there can be no real closure. And another thing occurred to me...I read a story last night about Colin Powell signalling the war would start in 10 days. Let's see...ebola released today...confirmed 8 days from now after people have been dropping like flies for a week from what they thought were really bad hangovers...day #9 New Orleans is fixed as the release-point...day # 10 the FBI produces Bubba bin Laden, who points the finger at Hussein...overnight 'emergency meeting' and the U.N. votes for war and the tanks roll. Sounds like a plan. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:34 PM I don't have access to your private information. I have access to your public information. Stuff that you have posted before. And that is enough for me to be able to see you everytime. Nice try on the "threatening" piece. But I am not threatening you. You have nothing to worry about from me, except when you do destructive, manipulative crap. Then the only thing that you have to worry about is folks being on to your game. Because I intend to tell them. By the way, what was your honorable intent in pretending to be a Russian who couldn't spell right? It is in the same thread that you started as Samantha. Your act was so poor that Daisy Duck and others saw right through it. And they aren't even clones!!!! Imagine that, some poor, misinformed person you thought you were manipulating figured you out. Must have been dumb luck. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:37 PM I love it, Dreaded Guest. Message received. I will go off now and just concentrate on the task at hand. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Tinker Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:44 PM On several occaisions we've had children over to visit whose parents believe that limits on behavior are not necessary. I've had children look me in the eye and tell me "of course I can do ____ I do it at home" The answer is always " Sorry, we don't do that here." No debate. No discussion. If they can't follow through, they go home. They don't come back for a long time. Very few six year olds don't understand that the grown up in charge gets to set the rules. Some "adults" never seem to.... Tinker |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:44 PM Oh, so you don't use the only legitimate method of verifying who is posting what, which is the IPs. Instead, you expect people to believe you use your extraordinary psychic literary powers to suss out peoples' identities online instead. Credible, Big Mick. Really credible. I'm still waiting for all the Mudcat members to come in here and thank you for this great public service you are doing the forum, by carrying on this ridiculous vendetta. Like you said a couple of posts back up the line, Big Mick, it is still all about you not getting your way about a veteran's thread, and has absolutely nothing to do with you providing a needed, necessary service to the forum. But I will give you an "A" for effort and persistence. I admit I've never seen anyone online carry a vendetta against another poster that goes to the lengths we are seeing here with Joe and the clones. I just don't understand what the hell kind of fear and insecurity drives them. I really don't. You know, I'm really hurt. I said I often agree with your political opinions, and I said I admire your chutzpah. All I complained about was that you inundate Mudcat with far too much verbiage. Is THAT a vendetta? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:50 PM It isn't about limits and boundaries IMO Tinker. If the problems here were that black and white, they could be resolved fairly easily, and without rancor and backlash from the peanut gallery. It is about a double standard--one standard of behavior for the Mudcat Royals and another for the Mudcat rank and file. It is about certain members and their special privleges and powers to dictate to other Mudcat members what they can and can't post, and what they can can't say, and how they can and can't say it. It is about censorship and punishment of those posters and subjects the Mudcat Royals don't like, and won't tolerate in their midst. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:50 PM he's been right every time. That gives him the credibility that you lack |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:51 PM Answer the question. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:51 PM A few quotes that bear repeating from Max's first posting from Nov. 2001 in this thread: Please everyone, show tolerance and patience, love and empathy. I strive to have no negative emotions in my life, especially hate. I don't even allow my daughter use the word, and can't remember the last time I have, even casually about a food I don't like. I must admit that something that I am so closely associated with (Mudcat) contains so much of it... I've been through a lot...taking extraordinary efforts to keep Mudcat alive. I have shown tolerance and respect for it and all of you. Do me the same and help me clean up our imaginary town here at Mudcat, and fill it with love... Remember, this site is about Traditional Music. It is for musicians, educators and appreciaters to share stories, techniques, songs, etc. It also facilitates our real friendships and get-togethers. I've witnessed incredible acts of kindness, I've seen people cross an ocean and nary spend a dime besides the plane ticket, and I've met some of the finest people in the world, from 4 continents. These are our core principles and should be protected. If the spite in this forum inhibits the quest for knowledge or a real meeting of folks, we are defeating the very purpose... I need to look upon the Mudcat pages and see beautiful people being happy, because that is why I do this. It's not my work that makes this such a great place (though it don't hurt), it's all of you... We are a group, a whole. We are together because we share at least some common interest. We may not all see eye to eye on everything, but the Mudcat IS the sum of all its parts. I challenge you to make it work. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Tinker Date: 03 Mar 03 - 03:52 PM Sorry, your behavior is way beyong my tolerence levels. No more. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest Date: 03 Mar 03 - 04:04 PM Excuse me for butting in, but what's the big deal about identities? I make no great effort to cover up who and where I am. Any computer-savvy third grader could figure it out. And if some Mudcatter wanted to zero in on me...zero away. And the govt? I HOPE some drudge is assigned the chore of reading my posts, because I will make him or her SEE that the beast he/she is serving is going to chew up THEM after it gets finished with me. I think we should all post our addresses and send each other valentines cards with hate messages scrawled inside them. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 03 Mar 03 - 04:07 PM We are a group, a whole. We are together because we share at least some common interest. We may not all see eye to eye on everything, but the Mudcat IS the sum of all its parts. I challenge you to make it work. Will those that profess to like the forum read this, rise to this challenge and finally stop censoring/shaping and responding/feeding the many-named ones and doing it all in my name? We may not see eye to eye on everything and we don't need to. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 03 - 04:09 PM Here's a hate message for you: GO AWAY! GO VOMIT YOUR CONSIPIRACY THEORIES SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!! I HATE YOU! I'M VOTING YOU OFF THE FORUM! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 03 Mar 03 - 04:09 PM Right on, Dreaded one. It isn't about identity, but it is about being responsible for what you post. This person gets the attention because s/he abuses the anonymity to spread a great deal of ill will. I could care less who someone is, but when they threaten the forum with their irresponsibility, that is another serving of champ. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 03 Mar 03 - 04:20 PM "On March 3 (today), the CIA might release a bioweapon at Mardi Gras." SURELY the "World Prayer Center" in Colorado Springs, led by the famous Ted Haggard, can prevent this! And if, in a week or two, we DON'T have thousands of dead people in New Orleans, from Ebola or some other nastiness, it will either be because prayer worked...or the CIA is just looking for a better time...or the Illuminati have bigger fish to fry, or....maybe because no one even thought of it except you! sheeesh! (it's past 3:33 where I live, and just approaching it in New Orleans...'scuse me, I gotta go scan CNN for breaking news!) |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,The Dreaded Guest Date: 03 Mar 03 - 04:24 PM Use a neuron, Bill. If you rely on CNN for your news, you're watching an admitted army psychological-operations program. And Bubba bin Laden won't be apprehended for 8 days under my scenario. Anyway...Mick...what is 'responsibility'? I think it's subjective. I know who is responsible for Sept 11, and I would be derelict to my oaths to the U.S. Constitituion if I didn't do all I could to 'protect and defend' the country from the people responsible for that crime. So I point out the obvious about our govt of organized criminals and then question a lot. Chemtrails? We're not talking about a single farmer in a crop duster...I'm talking about the air forces of many nations. It merits discussion. Constant terror alerts threatening us with bioweapons?...well, then, when I see New Orleans becoming a Federal district right before another 'Pearl-harbor-like' event is needed to get the public behind a genocidal war, I have to ask questions. And in asking those questions, I try to show people the reasoning behind what brought me to my conclusions. To me, that is responsible behavior. I've made a concession to Mudcat in using a consistent handle, so I don't know what else I can do. You folks are on my list of forums to post this stuff to, so I'll be here from time to time in the future. Just don't read my posts. Last night I was looking up the threads I've posted to here, and I was struck by how much you folks like to argue. HUNDREDS of complaints about 'having to read this stuff'. Do you know what an insight that gives into yourself? You don't believe what I'm posting, you know who is posting by the handle, but you 'have' to read the post. You think I'm making things up, lying, so that must mean you 'have' to be lied to. Amazing. You don't feel right unless you think you're being lied to. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Lepus Rex Date: 03 Mar 03 - 04:31 PM As entertaining as your paranoid delusions are, Mick, they're really starting to cross over the line from "town drunk funny" to "crazed loner creepy." If you took every post by, uh, the person you call "JR WAMSO Matriot GUEST karen, samantha," and put the name "catspaw49" or "Jeri" in the From: spot, your responses would have typically read something like "Hah-hah, well said, old chum!" It is all about anonymity, your insecurity, and whatever other personal problems you have that make you think this idiotic witch-hunt is something a normal human being would do. The only thing missing from your rants were quotes from your close, personal friends, Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela, and Pope John Paul II, on how much they dislike anonymous GUESTs. Take a moment to think about the things you're saying and doing. Stalking people is creepy. Why not pick on someone your own "size," and not such an easily despised target as a GUEST? Personally, I'm beginning not to like the idea of some of you "clones" having the level of power here that you do. Some of you are way too involved to be impartial and fair. (Yeah, yeah, I know: "Love it or leave it." You're still fucking sell outs. :)) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 03 Mar 03 - 04:35 PM I enjoy your posts, DG. I think you are nuttier than a fruitcake, but in a way that I enjoy. And you are provocative in an interesting way, that is always good. One would only need read the difference in your posts and karen Samantha Matriot et al, to know the difference. Your intent is to be provocative and challenge folks to think. This other poster does that at times, but ultimately slips back into the attack and destroy mode. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 03 Mar 03 - 04:41 PM Lepus, I have disliked you and your posts for quite a long time. But I never have sensed that your intent was to run stupid games and hurt the forum or the people on it. It is people like this that have changed this forum and caused it to border on being irrelevant. Some of the very best posters no longer come here. I am no longer willing to sit by and watch it happen. I hope others feel the same way and say so. If not, the twisted folks win. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Lepus Rex Date: 03 Mar 03 - 04:58 PM Gosh, Mick, I don't dislike you. I just dislike what you're doing, lately. I think what you are doing is harmful to the forum and the people on it. I think you, and unfriendly people like you, have driven off more people, mainly newcomers, than anyone. You are "run(ning) stupid games" with your persistent attacks on those percieve to be conspiring against you. As you said, "some of the very best posters no longer come here." True, and unfortunate. But to blame this on anon. GUESTs, me, and others is silly. People come and go now like they always have. I know you'd like it to be 1998 again, with your cozy little group of buddies. But this isn't then. If I'm not mistaken, the Mudcat is more popular now than ever. But you say it's becoming "irrelevant?" Obviously not to most people. Relevancy is not determined by your ability to adapt, Mick. ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,? Date: 03 Mar 03 - 05:07 PM Why not change the label from "GUEST" to "TROLL?" From what I've seen, it seems like it'd be much more accurate. Back to watching for those Billy Goats Gruff- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 03 Mar 03 - 05:09 PM Please accept my apology for saying I didn't like you. I did not mean that, and I do not feel that way. I really have come to disagree with much of what you post, but that is distinctly different from not liking you. I hope you will forgive that part. I don't perceive this person and his/her ilk to be conspiring against me. I do perceive them as using the Mudcat for their own perverse aims. To deny that is so is simply to live in denial. You and I will have to disagree on that. In fact, I would not want to go back to 1998. I simply want those that come here to be able to have the same kind of experience. But.........I digress. I would be happy to exchange PM's about what you see as my problem. In the meantime, if people are upset that I am exposing someone who is trying to make them look foolish, I am sure they will tell me. But I will still be attempting to stop these destructive acts at every opportunity. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Amos Date: 03 Mar 03 - 05:15 PM Nor is it defined by your ability to be nasty, Lepus. I cannot believe that you fail to understand the point that it isn't anything to do with anonymity. It is all to do with hiddenness. They are too entirely different things. You for example, are entirely anonymous to me, but you have the guts to sign consistently so I have a sense of your being SOMEONE, even though I have no idea who in real human terms. See the difference? Freedom and irresponsibility don't survive well together. One of them usually drives the other out. What has driven some of the really responsible and intelligent voices away has been (a) drivel and (b) vitriol. How about a pact -- let's discourage both! A |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 03 - 05:47 PM Oh, so now it's about having the courage to be consistently anonymous, then? Right. REAL men post anonymously, consistently. Got it. This society THRIVES on freedom and irresponsibility. It has regularly produced masterpieces of such--SUVs, MTV, the Bush administration, and too much sugar. Also, if the problem is simply too much drivel and vitriol, you'll have to drive most every member and guest of Mudcat out of the forum to clean it up. Members using consistent names, even their own, are some of the worst perpetrators of drivel and vitriol, in fact. Good standard though. Pretty soon we'll have a folk and blues music forum for saintly netizens. That'll be fascinating. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 03 Mar 03 - 05:56 PM I just want to say that I think the change that I'm seeing right now in the Forum Home page, with the BS threads together at the bottom of the page, is brilliant!! Well done! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Mar 03 - 06:01 PM I like it too! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 03 - 06:06 PM I, the *&^% guest (fill in your own blanks) also think it is an excellent idea, and said so here: TECH: As Above So Below If it is more appropriate in the BS section, move it. But I thought everyone might like a chance to give credit where it is due! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Mar 03 - 06:07 PM Looks a lot better to visitors doesn't it? All thanks to Jeff here. Another great job!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 03 Mar 03 - 06:16 PM An elegant solution, Jeff. Wonderful! Thanks! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rustic Rebel Date: 03 Mar 03 - 06:20 PM I agree- linking the BS together is ok by me. Guest- post 4:09, that was pretty distasteful and full of malice. Your not a very happy camper are you? Amos- I started a UFO thread that brought some interesting conversation and fun. I don't regret that I did that. Now I'm thinking it's time for a Mudcat St.Patrick's day tavern. Time for music, fun, and frolic! Did someone fix the hole in the roof? Peace. Rustic |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Mar 03 - 06:20 PM Jeff and I were wondering how long it would take somebody to notice. I think Carol wins the prize. Her message was posted about half an hour after the change took place. Jeff did the programming, of course. I don't remember whose idea it was, but I think maybe I'll claim credit for it. I've been bugging Jeff to do it for at least a week - but maybe it was his idea in the first place. Anyhow, I think it works better than thread consolidation, but you may still see some consolidation at times. As for the long list at the top of linked threads, we haven't come up with a solution. As I said, it works well when there are no more than about twenty items to crosslink. It does get a little awkward in large groups like the PEL group. We have a lot of reasons for doing the crosslinks. It introduces people to interesting threads they may have missed. Also, we hope that maybe people will see the variety of existing threads and post to one of them, instead of starting yet another thread on the same topic. Anyhow, congratulations, Carol. You have a sharp eye. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Amos Date: 03 Mar 03 - 07:23 PM RR: I enjoyed the UFO threade. Why wouldn't I. When I say "drivel" I am talking about "Anyone seen my moggie?" threads. A |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 03 Mar 03 - 07:24 PM Thanks Joe. Great job Jeff!! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Don Firth Date: 03 Mar 03 - 07:39 PM I just popped on minute or two ago. Outstanding, guys! Great idea! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 03 Mar 03 - 07:42 PM well...I was surfing elsewhere, or *I* would have won the prize...I saw it immediately when I returned...*pout* and I 'think' it is a good solution......Thanks Jeff, and whoever thought it up...it is a simple application of the BS filter, with the option of looking when you want to... |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: CarolC Date: 03 Mar 03 - 07:55 PM I also just want to say that no GUEST has ever made me feel foolish. They just don't have that much power over me. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 03 - 08:22 PM From Big Mick: "Lepus, I have disliked you and your posts for quite a long time." "Please accept my apology for saying I didn't like you. I did not mean that, and I do not feel that way." Is that Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde talking? More Big Mickisms: "In the meantime, if people are upset that I am exposing someone who is trying to make them look foolish, I am sure they will tell me." From CarolC: "I also just want to say that no GUEST has ever made me feel foolish. They just don't have that much power over me." From Lepus Rex: "As entertaining as your paranoid delusions are, Mick, they're really starting to cross over the line from "town drunk funny" to "crazed loner creepy"...Take a moment to think about the things you're saying and doing. Stalking people is creepy. " |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Pooka Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:04 PM The High Wall of Separation! (And now, in *this* corner -- *Together Again* -- LURCH & HATE!! Let's give it up forum ladies and gentlemen...) Thank you, Joe and Jeff! Excellent. Nice work. Solomonic, bedad. Split dat ole baby. / 'Scuse me now, I gotta go draw my Bathwater. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Pooka Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:16 PM Of course there may arise some threads concerning which it becomes a puzzle to decide, for placement purposes, Which type izzit? Especially when Creep approaches Crossover. (Say, does a BS thread ever evolve into mostly Music? Why not?? :) But then again: So Wot? You can't Legislate for all the Exceptions. Hard cases make bad law, dear kindly Joe Yer Honor. / Screw it, flip a coin when it happens. We can find what we want. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,Janetryan Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:32 PM No I am not the Janet Ryan who may or may not exist, I simply wanted to get your attention by using that name. If there is already someone posting to the forum under this name, I won't use it again. I'm a semi regular and have had a run in with one of the people who seems to enjoy making a fool of everybody in this thread and the group mind one. This has gone on long enough. Joe and Mick, shame on you. I know you've never been mothers with ten year old children, but surely you've had enough personal or indirect experience to recognize BRATS! That's what you have here on the forum, and there's not a mother alive who doesn't know how little brats operate. They get bored and they disrupt, and as long as they are treated the way they are here at Mudcat, they'll continue. Do you honestly think these empty threats about revealing information do anything but make them chuckle with glee? You are obviously too gentlemanly, or simply too darn 'folkie' to carry through your threats and the 'brats' know it. They use all the little 'brat' tricks that mothers are so familiar with, especially 'divide and conquer'. All three brats that I can see, the anonymous ones and LR use that trick constantly when they talk about us or we. Don't fall for it and keep arguing back, it makes you look silly. I at least hope you wouldn't be arguing with three ten year olds. If you want your little piece of the net to be a friendly spot a bit less nasty than what's usually out there, block access for the brats until they decide they really do like it here. Please stop arguing with them. Do something other than make empty statements that little brats can see right through and you'll have very little need to control anything in the future. Bev B. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: *daylia* Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:38 PM When I logged in after work tonight and started scrolling down the list of threads, I experienced a brief moment of rather intense disappointment as in Oh no! They've actually decided to delete all the BS!! *Whew* so glad that's not so! This change makes it a lot easier to find the threads I'm looking for. Great idea - and thanks so much to all the forum moderators for doing what you do. Now I'm off to listen to Homer, if Kat's link is up and running yet... Cheers! daylia |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: *daylia* Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:41 PM And I just noticed the little BS clicky at the top of the page - another brilliant idea! You guys are awesome - just had to say that! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:46 PM I don't want people to troll for me. I certainly don't want to take the bait. I've started this new practice of skipping a post the minute I determine that it is a troll. For example I have read exactly this much of the previous thread. "No I am not the Janet Ryan who may or may not exist, I simply wanted to get your attention by using that name." That was enough to tell me that the person was not making an effort to communicate and thus was trying to waste my time and energy. So far the results are excellent, lower blood pressure, no grinding of teeth and no desire to lash out. Ahhhhhhhh, y'all should try it. Nine out of ten dentists recommed it. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jeri Date: 03 Mar 03 - 09:57 PM Jack, you knee-jerked. You didn't read it so you wouldn't know, but the person who posted the message you quote from is absolutly right. Trolls are brats. Unfortunately, they've found a lot of other brats to play with. People who LOVE these stupid, painful flame games and never never NEVER know when to put a sock in it. For some, 2 or 3 years ago would have shown signs of an ability to learn or at least a willingness to forego personal jollies for the good of the group. Fat friggin' chance. Welcome to "Lord of the Flies." |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: *daylia* Date: 03 Mar 03 - 10:10 PM BTW - How did Janetryan's and Jack the Sailor's last posts end up on two threads at once (this one and the Mudcat Group Mind)???? A cyber-mystery perhaps? daylia |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: *daylia* Date: 03 Mar 03 - 10:22 PM Never mind - I see now they did it themselves. Must be too tired to read properly - sorry bout that. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 03 Mar 03 - 11:28 PM Its about time! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 04 Mar 03 - 02:11 AM In the meantime, if people are upset that I am exposing someone who is trying to make them look foolish, I am sure they will tell me. But I will still be attempting to stop these destructive acts at every opportunity. Not in my name please. Please finally accept that the intentionally destructive acts cause less real problems than the well-intentioned responses. If you do wish to do something in my name Please just IGNORE them? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Mark Clark Date: 04 Mar 03 - 02:46 AM Very nice change guys. Thanks again for another job well done. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 04 Mar 03 - 03:22 AM This was coloured Brown. As for "And then they came for me," you're right that it is applicable to PEL's, but it also applies to a much wider spectrum of situations. It gives great insight to German history, and it applies in a very frightening way to the USA Patriot Act and the "Homeland Security" legislation. It is certainly appropriate for it to be on your thread listing PEL links, but it will not be included in the PEL thread grouping. That decision is final. -Joe Offer- I think Joe that you have rather missed off of your list a rather important relevance that this particular thread has. But Jeri said, only in black and white. The thread that was grouped with PELs and was unlinked - well I did the un-link - it was fairly obvious to me that, while that thread could be related to PELs, it was also related to other issues going on. I watched that thread and the Help Forum (correcting mistakes is the reason it exists). Not one word. I'm just guessing, but I'd bet Joe never got a PM about it either. This silence led me to believe the un-linking was the right thing to do. The thread is now back in the group. ??? Is it re-linked or is un-linked again? And earlier (also in brown) One of the beauties of this place is its spontaneity, so I want to be careful not to exercise too much control -Joe Offer- Perhaps those who thought that they had read this thread can go back and see what (brown) additions have been made? Joe can you please decide if you are going to confine your personal views to the forum, as one of the lads, where they are not the FINAL word, or to your brown comments non-negotiable and intrusive 'Big Brother' role made after the event? I don't think that you can really expect us to accept that you can have it both ways. Or do you? Sounds like manipulation to me, a spoiled kid running to Mommy when Daddy's decision is unsatisfactory. I talked with Jeri about this, and we are in agreement. The decision is final, and the thread has been removed from the PEL group. The consensus in the thread in question was that it should not be included in the PEL group. The only dissenting voice was that of Shambles. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Nigel Parsons Date: 04 Mar 03 - 07:22 AM The division seems to be working, in the last 40 minutes messages have been posted to 10 threads in the upper part, but this is the first in the BS. Possibly some may not have noticed the moving of the BS, as they use the same system I do of scrolling down until they reach a message already marked as read, and assume there is nothing new further down the page. Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Nigel Parsons Date: 04 Mar 03 - 07:26 AM I've just also noted that posting to a BS thread, you automatically get 'jumped' back to the top of the main list, not the BS. As the message only jumps part way up some may think their post hasn't made it, and while they would spot that on re-entering the thread, and so not re-post, it is possible that someone might duplicate a Newly created BS thread when they don't spot it at the top of the list. Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 04 Mar 03 - 07:44 AM The only dissenting voice was that of Shambles. Who just happened to be the originator of the thread and whoever that originator was, their views and wishes should be respected and perhaps their opinion could be sought before any action is taken? I did not ask for the thread to be linked to the other PEL threads, the linking just happened, following the fact that I had included it my thread with all the PEL links- fair enough. Jeri then decided it was a mistake and unlinked it. Following my comments, she very kindly re-linked it and now Big Brother Brown has decided to ignore all that and finally decide that it will be un-linked again...............And then accuses me of manipulation? This is a very small issue, does it really need to be treated in this heavy, unfriendly and plainly unecessary way? Max said. We are a group, a whole. We are together because we share at least some common interest. We may not all see eye to eye on everything, but the Mudcat IS the sum of all its parts. I challenge you to make it work. Does this make me a brat then? Is anyone who does not agree with Joe, and by this apparently challenges his authority, a brat and to be treated as all the other brats are? Is this really the way to make Max's vision work? Then they came for me Am I really the only person who finds Joe's Big Brother - brown comments in this thread intrusive, offensive and unacceptable and completly at odds with the spirit of Mudcat and the thoughts and wishes of Max? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Ralphie Date: 04 Mar 03 - 08:16 AM Shambles To answer your last question.... YES Regards Ralphie But, I do appreciate and support your stance on the PEL issue, as you know. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 04 Mar 03 - 09:12 AM Wait till they come for you.......*Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 04 Mar 03 - 11:25 AM No Shambles, you aren't alone. Clearly there are others who share your views, and they have said so in this thread. I just posted to the "TECH: As Above So Below" thread the following remarks on the subject, which certainly bears repeating in this thread where it is happening with an alarming frequency: "I see a serious problem still with Joe and clones making "editorial" attacks on individual users of the forum, whether members or guests. I also see a serious problem with clones masquerading as guests to post personal attacks on forum users. If forum maintainers behaved like that in the business and education discussion forums I'm in, they certainly wouldn't be forum maintainers or administrators for long. It is completely unprofessional." " |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Mar 03 - 01:21 PM Jack, you knee-jerked. You didn't read it so you wouldn't know, but the person who posted the message you quote from is absolutly right. No Jeri, no a knee jerk, a deliberate strategy to mke my experience on the Mudcat more comfortable. I've just read the "janetryan" post and I stand by my decision. I agree with nearly everything that she says and she does say it quite well and with much less acrimony than many, but that opening statement was enough to tell me not to expect civility, to expect some name calling, and that the author is going to continue with the SOS that pollutes an otherwise very nice on line community. The term "Brat" is a perjoritave and does not belong in polite conversation. It looks as though she uses it to refer to "Anon Guests" and to LR (Lupis Rex?). Are not personal attacks on members, ie name calling, dissallowed under the rules of conduct of the MudCat? It seems to me that personal atacks on "Guests", if anything, is worse. The culture here seems to reward name calling, acrimony and attacks on "GUESTS" does anyone besides me see how wrong that is. In some cases it means heated attacks on some people who appear to me mentally ill. Insults and personal attacks on ANYONE, don't help to build a community. They do quite the opposite. I may be nice for some to have an entire group of people to "beat" when they get "uppity", but the practice demeans the MudCat and reflects badly upon all of the members. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST Date: 04 Mar 03 - 01:26 PM Amen to that, Brother Jack the Sailor. About time some member spelled out the double standard for the Mudcat Royals, in no uncertain terms. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 03 - 02:03 PM Sham: You are confused, that's all. All this horseshit about censorship has gone to your head, I think. There are clearly two classes of voice at workhere-- those promulgating unhappiness and those offering constructive thought. No-one has censored your right to say anything -- except personal ad hominem attacks. Doesn't it seem to you, Roger, looking back over this long, dull discussion that there has been a real CARLOAD of whinging here? It does to me. Whinging and whining and complaining about something to which you add nothing, own nothing, and contribute only turbulent confusion is really a low-class act. I see an awful lot of it, and I find it actually repels. Now why would some buncha low-lifes want to take something decent and turn it into something repulsive? Hmmmmm? Hard to imagine what sort of bizarre mindset could sustain an intent so base. A |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Mar 03 - 02:33 PM Amos are you talking about the same small group of people who have been whinging continously for at least 2.5 years about the behavior of "GUESTS"; people who consistantly reinforce this behavior because whinging is the most tasty of troll foods? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 04 Mar 03 - 03:36 PM Yes Amos there has been a lot of whingeing and whining, but I am not confused. The situation is pretty clear but there are some who have lost the plot. And I do not see very much constructive thought comming from those self-appointed to protect me. And from what? Can you read back in this thread and look at Joe's 'official'(brown) comments, and honestly tell me that these can be construed as constructive or anything other than power exerted without responsibilty, or any clear goal. With goal posts that can be moved at Joe's personal whim. Whatever problems Joe is supposed to be adressing, these are practical ones and do not require the following paranoid nonsense purporting to be 'official'. Practical problems have practical solutions, not this nasty hidden agenda and censorship, yes censorship. Sounds like manipulation to me, a spoiled kid running to Mommy when Daddy's decision is unsatisfactory. I talked with Jeri about this, and we are in agreement. The decision is final, and the thread has been removed from the PEL group. The consensus in the thread in question was that it should not be included in the PEL group. The only dissenting voice was that of Shambles. I put my personal views in regular messages. The brown comments are official. -Joe Offer- There is a proportiate response to my request and this is not it. All this heavy Big Brother stuff is just not necessary or in the spirit of Max's ideal. Max's ideal is based on trust. This trust is being betrayed by those who support this hyperbole (all for the best of reasons), but betrayed never-the-less.Joe does not appear to be prepared to trust anyone, at it would appear to be infectious. There comes a time when you have to stop and think and to make some difficult choices, I feel this is such a time. My comments at this time may appear to be supporting the obvious destructive element - the shadows you won't ingnore but still insist on trying to smite with a good swipe of a baseball bat, but the really destructive element is Joe's Big Brother concept. This Big Brother, final decision concept of Joe's, is totally destructive to the constuctive ideals and efforts of many that make The Mudcat Cafe the slightly chaotic but wonderful place it remains and which Max created for us. It is all done for the best reasons. However, a flower accidently trampled underfoot, remains just as dead as one deliberately cut down. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 03 - 05:09 PM Gee guys, I dunno who the special people are you are upset about -- although I concede there seem to be a certain number who agree with Joe, and a certain number who (in my view) have taken an ordinary management thing and tried to make a political issue out of it. Who are these Mudcat Royals you seem to be upset about? The clones? Is there some dirty pool going on I don't know about? Who specifically are you on about? I think Joe is striving for the best solution for the overall scene here, and you do him a disservice. I haven't seem him remove anything from access except (as he clearly said he would) ad hominem scurrilosities and excessive pasting from other sites, which abuses the privilege of Mudcat bandwidth. FInally, bear in mind that although the internal space of this forum is very wide open, the forum is a cyber-event, not a real-life event, and the creation of it was brought about through a lot of sweat and effort on others' parts, loaded up on machinery bought by others' sweat. As far as I can see, from that perspective, we are all guests. And it seems to me that the protocol of being a guest applies -- try to help the host keep things running and don't add any stress to his life, walk lightly on his hospitality, and do what you can to help out. I don't see a lot of that kind of effort in play here. A |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 04 Mar 03 - 05:57 PM it seems to be difficult for some...members and non-members alike....to accept that their views are in the minority. I do not agree with 'everything' Joe or Max has ever done and said...but I DO accept that they are the management, and I note that a large majority not only accepts that, but agrees with the decisions OF the management. Shambles, perhaps you have struggled with the PELs thing so long and hard that 'protest' against perceived injustice has become a major hobby. Not that protest is inherently bad, but it can get a bit petty if one is not careful.. The situation in English pubs IS a bit different than how Max chooses to run his own web site, but you seem obsessed with poking and nagging him to do it YOUR way. At some point, it might be well to just accept that you have gotten a LOT of use and mileage from this place and allow Max, thru Joe and a couple others, to operate it with merely 94% of the optimum you have as your goal. not a bad deal, it seems to me... |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 04 Mar 03 - 07:38 PM it seems to be difficult for some...members and non-members alike....to accept that their views are in the minority. I do not agree with 'everything' Joe or Max has ever done and said...but I DO accept that they are the management, and I note that a large majority not only accepts that, but agrees with the decisions OF the management. I accept that my views may be a minority, are we not all a minority of one. But since when has the Mudcat been a democracy or a grouping of like-thinking souls? But as the originator of the post in question, I simply feel that my original view and wishes should have been respected or at least requested, before any asumption or decision was made. It was a small point, as I have said. It would appear to have become a larger point when it was seen to be challenge to the new management's authority. Perhaps that is the problem, I was not aware that there had been a change of management ethos and that Joe alone was that management. But Bill you then refer to Max running his own website and me nagging him to do things my way. Not so, It is rather that I expecting Joe to do it Max's way...... The PEL campaign is about the freedom of expression, and so is this. It is also about people in authority who think they have obtained a position where they don't have to listen to perfectly reasonable requests and feel they know what is best to impose on everyone else. Those actively fighting the on PEL issue are indeed being well served and supported by the Mudcat. This has been acknowledged more than once by me in this thread. I think it would be fair to say however that Joe has largely been responsible for publicly creating the idea, or at least making it appear to be a respectable view, that The Mudcat, for various reasons, was not really the place for this subject. A point he has again unnecessarily made in this thread. Is this view management policy also, or Joe's personal view and is there a difference, for Joe's personal opinions and digs, appear in both Big Brother brown and in black. That is the problem I have, for I can argue with you Bill (as we have many times) and you are not going be able to put on your management hat and say this is the final decision..... Not everything on the forum will ever be to everyone's sense of order or taste, but do we really want everything to taste the same? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 04 Mar 03 - 08:38 PM ok...at least I made the point I wanted, and you listened and answered. As you note, I don't have any final say. (and, having watched Joe do this 'housekeeping' for several years, I suspect he is far more tolerant and easy about it all than **I** would have been) I don't see any easy answer, for, if Joe were to change and go more in the direction you propose, (i.e. doing almost nothing to the threads), he would no doubt get protests from other quarters. tell you what...I'll trade you a year of fighting PELS for a year of being governed by G. Bush!... |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 04 Mar 03 - 09:55 PM Rest assured, Shambles, there isn't anything that Joe does that Max does not approve. Joe, Jeff, and Max are the ones to keep this place up and running on track. I supported you on the PEL threads issue, but this one thing you are on about tells me you haven't forgotten how to flog a dead horse. Joe isn't doing any censoring except personal attacks and lengthy cut and paste. That's simple enough to understand, isn't it? So the thread in question was linked, then unlinked, then whatever. So what? It will be here FOREVER. Isn't that enough? Some websites will dump a person's personal webpages, photos, & email after a certain length of time. Not Mudcat. Your words, your wonderful songs, all that you've said on here will always be in the Mudcat database. Be grateful for that and move on to sharing some more of your songs etc., please. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: artbrooks Date: 04 Mar 03 - 10:14 PM Ever notice how those who have the least to say, and even less that is worth reading, take up the most space? Joe and crew are doing a great job. Combining threads is a good idea. They have been immediately responsive to legitimate complaints that specific combinations were inappropriate (such as Bee-dubya-el's comment about a purple thing). Splitting off BS is needed, and I appreciate the link to recombine them. BTW, obnoxious neurotic GUEST and pathetic paranoid GUEST are trying really hard to hijack this discussion. Remember, if you don't feed them, they will eventually go away. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: TIA Date: 04 Mar 03 - 10:33 PM Been gone a couple days...EEEEEExcellent! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Mark Cohen Date: 04 Mar 03 - 10:51 PM Joe, I hate to keep beating a herd of dead horses, but when you said, "I put my personal views in regular messages. The brown comments are official." I think you must have forgotten about this message, which was in brown: You know, I'm really hurt. I said I often agree with your political opinions, and I said I admire your chutzpah. All I complained about was that you inundate Mudcat with far too much verbiage. Is THAT a vendetta?...I'll stop there. I doubt that anyone would consider this an "official" message. Frankly, I think it was a misuse of your "official" status. It was an understandable mistake, but I still believe it was inappropriate. And in my opinion, the best way to avoid this situation is simply to back off. The segregation of posts was reasonable, though I had no problem with the Forum as it was. And I do agree with the basic principle of curbing personal attacks. But otherwise, as far as I'm concerned the less "thread police" the better. Things have a tendency to work themselves out one way or the other, and nobody ever made a successful career out of pushing rivers. (Well, there is the Army Corps of Engineers, of course...but you know what I mean.) OK, I think I'll go have that Mai Tai on the beach now...it's almost sunset! Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Mar 03 - 11:29 PM Hmmm. should I shut up, or should I respond? Well, what the heck.... I don't harbor animosity and I have no reason for vendattas, but I do enjoy a good verbal joust every once in a while. You can search this forum for as long as you wish, and you can search every e-mail and personal message I've sent, and you will never see any indication that I think that the subject of PEL (Public entertainment Licensing) is inappropriate for Mudcat. There are very few topics that are more appropriate. I am in complete sympathy with all those who oppose PEL's. Is that understood? PEL's are a worthy topic for discussion here. I do not think that any establishment should have to pay a fee if they wish to allow amateur musicians to sing in their establishment. This is a serious problem, a threat to traditional music in the UK. HOWEVER, this is a problem that will be cured by logic, persuasion, and negotiation - not by burying Mudcat or Parliament or anyone in a flood of words. Mudcat is a perfect place for discussion of this topic - but not a place for propaganda. Click here for the entire list of PEL threads. Even Shambles complains about the length of the list, because it appears at the top of every PEL thread. I last counted sixty, but now I think the number is 115. There's a lot of good information there - but you have to wade though a lot of repeated information to get to the new stuff. So yeah, I think a little moderation would be nice. And yeah, I think it would be good to post chiefly to existing threads on the topic. As for removing the They Came For Me thread from the PEL group, I think my decision was reasonable. The first 22 messages in the thread made no mention of PEL's, and the 23rd is a complaint about it being included in the PEL group. I admit it - I'm the one who copied the thread numbers from Shambles' PEL threads list, and I put this thread in the PEL group based on information from Shambles. He did not ask me to include it in the group - I copied the thread number from his links thread. It was my mistake. When it was determined that this thread was included by mistake, it was removed, and then inserted again due to miscommunication when Shambles demanded it. It was removed once again, and will not be included in the PEL group. I suppose there could be a vague connection between the saying and the PEL issue, but "They Came For Me" is usually understood to refer to the Holocaust, not to Public Entertainment Licenses. To me, linking "They Came For Me" to PEL's is a sacrilege. PEL's are a serious issue, but the Holocaust is the most awful thing that has happened in the history of the human race. To lump the Holocaust and PEL's together is to cheapen the importance of both of these serious issues. So, that's mostly the facts, plus a small dose of my personal opinion. It's unfair to condemn me for my opinion if you fail to state my opinion correctly. -Joe Offer- Aw, c'mon, Mark! Did I say anything insulting in that message? No - I just said I was not on a vendetta and had no reason to be on a vendetta - but that our friend floods the place with too much verbiage. I even said I agreed with and admired our friend. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Amos Date: 04 Mar 03 - 11:42 PM Nicely said, Joe. A |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 05 Mar 03 - 08:52 AM Some facts. From the 'Then they came for me thread'. 21 Feb 03 - 09:48 PM Post Must be because The Shambles started it... a Mudcat mistake. [Edit in green] I believe it was a mistake. It's now unlinked. --JoeClone [Edit in brown] I did the original grouping for the PEL threads, basing it on the "PEL: Links to all of them" thread. Since this thread was on the list, I included it. I was mistaken. The JoeClone was correct to remove it from the PEL group. -Joe Offer- [Edit in green] Shambles stated, in the thread on Thread Proliferation that he HAD wanted it to be grouped with the PEL threads, so it's back. --JoeClone [Edit in brown] 4 March 03 -Well, I guess Shambles succeeded in his attempt to manipulate us into looking silly. The thread has been removed from the PEL group. This decision is final. -Joe Offer- Subject: RE: Then they came for me? From: The Shambles - PM Date: 25 Feb 03 - 05:40 AM It was NOT a mistake. Perhaps it could kindly be re-linked? Perhaps Joe you could have checked, before acting on what you beleived? Joe in this thread. [In black] When it was determined that this thread was included by mistake, it was removed, and then inserted again due to miscommunication when Shambles demanded it. It was removed once again, and will not be included in the PEL group. Joe if you can construe 'Perhaps it could kindly be re-linked' as a demand and a polite request as an ' attempt to manipulate us into looking silly', I think you have well made my point. If the above 'Gollum-like' mutterings make you look or feel silly, it is all of your own making and certainly not my intention. For the fact that you saw it as a 'demand' seemed to be the spiteful reason you finally decided to un-link it and as everyone can now clearly see it wasn't a demand, perhaps you could now kindly re-link it and we can all move on. You sum-up with. So, that's mostly the facts, plus a small dose of my personal opinion. It's unfair to condemn me for my opinion if you fail to state my opinion correctly. Your opinion I can deal with, it is your manipulation, bullying tone and final word, and telling the difference between them, that I have a more of problem with. In any 'verbal joust' with the King, it is as well to remember that he has the power at any time to chop off your head. This hardly makes for a fair contest. You appear to have a basic problem in that you do not trust the posters and see everything as a paranoid 'battle over turf'. There may well be such a battle, but this is only with 'shadows'. Keeping on swinging the baseball bat at these shadows will not harm them but it will harm the people and very thing you claim to be fighting for. It is a discussion forum and it requires posts, threads and free expression from all shapes and sizes, it is not a battle. If you wish to change something, what is wrong with asking first? Confine your opinions to the forum, where they have just as much validity as everyone else, and continue to 'empty the bins' by all means. But please do not aspire to judge us, or the value, intent or other aspects of our threads for us – we can do that ourselves. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 05 Mar 03 - 10:38 AM You can make all the claims you wish that PELs should be discussed on the forum, but when you following these up with the following judgmental comments, as you do. It all makes no logical sense. . HOWEVER, this is a problem that will be cured by logic, persuasion, and negotiation - not by burying Mudcat or Parliament or anyone in a flood of words. Mudcat is a perfect place for discussion of this topic - but not a place for propaganda. There are no buts. This subject is no more or less valid than any other music concerned subject and presents exactly the same problems as any other well-supported subject over a long period. Who is qualified to judge what is or is not 'propaganda'? Even if you could define it, where is it so written that it is forbidden anyway? Propaganda is usually what the other side will claim you are spouting and in any campaign, the views you express are always propaganda. But the above judgement Joe is only your opinion, as valid as any other, but still only an opinion. Sadly you have grumbled on for so long, some folk assume that the PEL threads do present particular problems. But you also claim that it is a practical problem, but still prefer for some reason to grumble on about the number of threads - rather than address it. Click here for the entire list of PEL threads. Even Shambles complains about the length of the list, because it appears at the top of every PEL thread. I last counted sixty, but now I think the number is 115. There's a lot of good information there - but you have to wade though a lot of repeated information to get to the new stuff. So yeah, I think a little moderation would be nice. And yeah, I think it would be good to post chiefly to existing threads on the topic. Again the comments again are not confined to PEL threads, but are a general problem. The linking of related threads at the top of each thread was not a bad idea. However, having 115 links, on top of say 400 poster's names, means that another idea for well-supported subjects needs to be found. I have not complained about this but I have requested, as independently have to two other posters, that this be addressed. So where is the logic in Joe's argument? There are already 115 threads listed, even if no more threads were created and all future contributions were contained in these, there would still be (practically) too many listed at the top of each thread! The only practical response so far was the token effort to un-link the single, 'Then they came for me thread'. So we now only have 114! I can't really see that removing or placing a single link to this full list presents a difficult practical problem. Perhaps Jeff could clarify this? From what I have read, I suspect the list remains because Joe does not trust the poster's ability to use the existing links, if the full list is not displayed. [In brown] Roger, I don't like the way thread grouping works when there's a long list of threads, either. It works quite well in most situations, but the PEL list and Woody Guthrie and a couple of others don't group satisfactorily with the system we have. Jeff is toying with alternate ideas, but has not yet come up with an alternative that is satisfactory. Be assured that your request has been heard. Still, it's nice to have all the related threads visible, in hope that people will post to the appropriate existing thread instead of starting yet another one. We haven't found the perfect balance yet. The down side to this, apart from the length of time it takes to open is that, I gave out a link to one of the threads, and the person gave up, as they saw the list and then the list of posters and wrote back to say that the site was broken. I suppose there could be a vague connection between the saying and the PEL issue, but "They Came For Me" is usually understood to refer to the Holocaust, not to Public Entertainment Licenses. To me, linking "They Came For Me" to PEL's is a sacrilege. PEL's are a serious issue, but the Holocaust is the most awful thing that has happened in the history of the human race. To lump the Holocaust and PEL's together is to cheapen the importance of both of these serious issues. Again you are welcome to your opinion, but not to act on it without first obtaining the consent of the originator, or acting out of spite, in direct conflict with the wishes of the originator. To put the Holocaust in a box and to assume it happened because of a few human monsters is dangerous. Most of the human beings responsible for this and all the other terrible acts of genocide and inhumanity are sadly just like us. They screwed-up then just as we too screw-up every day. 'They came for me', is relevant to every aspect of our lives, and should always be in our minds, to hopefully prevent any reoccurrence. For these issues grow from small beginnings into the huge atrocities we abhor, they don't come clearly labelled. To change the subject a little, when a issue arrives, people often ask if you believe it was cock-up or conspiracy. I find it is usually both. A cock-up occurs and people conspire to cover it up, or call it by another name. It may only be a little tiny piece of censorship – but it is censorship. Let us call it by its name. Then we know how to control it before it controls us and becomes beyond our control. Let's find honest practical solutions for practical problems and not confuse our well-intentioned judgement, with these practical problems. Explanation of thread grouping: the way Jeff designed the system is quite clever. I enter a list of thread numbers on a page, and the page is programmed to put a list of crosslinks at the top of each interrelated thread. I used to have to put crosslinks into each thread by hand, but this automates the whole process. However, the system wasn't designed in anticipation of somebody starting 115...er, 114 threads on the same subject. It works well in almost every situation but the PEL threads. Accommodating the PEL threads will require some major changes in programming. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:11 PM Good recent discussion on this thread, people. Thanks for the civility. I still want someone to answer to me why people think that the concept of "censorship" has any weight here whatsoever. Will someone who thinks that Joe's actions constitute censorship please explain this to me? Mudcat is not a public speech forum. It is a private entity. Even the American Civil Liberties Union would laugh at you if you tried to bring suit against Mudcat for free speech issues. pax yall |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 05 Mar 03 - 12:35 PM The Shambles-does it really fucking matter wether your thread is linked to the others? Just about everybody here is happy with the way things are now, a few people moaned at the amount of war threads, so Joe stuck a few of them together, a few people moaned at the amount of BS here, so they created a filter, then put all the BS at the bottom of the list, a few people moaned about the amount of stuff about Hull here, i have just created a site specificly for hull news.Just about everybody here is happy now, you are still moaning! just drop it will you? John PS. dont bother sending me a PM, I have said all i want to here. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,Vulcanus Rex Date: 05 Mar 03 - 04:58 PM This thread is proof that Mudcat Management cannot and will not allow itself to be criticized. Period. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 05 Mar 03 - 05:11 PM Hahaha, that's one of the funniest things I've ever read on here...I'm sure Max will be happy to be informed of such! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Mar 03 - 06:00 PM This thread is proof that Mudcat Management cannot and will not allow itself to be criticized. Period Yeah, the son-of-a-bitches have the audacity to talk back when they're attacked!! They even use their dreaded Weapon of Mass Destruction - LOGIC!!! Shame on those Mudcat Mafia guys! -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 05 Mar 03 - 06:08 PM Joe, I had to laugh over in the White Muslim thread. Our friend, JR Wamso Peace Matriot Samantha et al, mentioned that she hoped that we wouldn't delete an attack on her because she likes knowing who the troglodytes are. Look in a mirror. Something twisted in the person who maintains her right to attack using multiple personalities wanting to be able to ID others. By the way, you haven't answered by query, WAMSO Matriot JR, about the logic of pretending that you are Russian, or answering your own posts as if two different people. I am interested in knowing what higher purpose is served by that. I know the problems here center around sick, power hungry people like myself, but I am trying to improve. So could you help me to understand, oh wise one? Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: NicoleC Date: 05 Mar 03 - 06:26 PM This thread is proof that Mudcat Management cannot and will not allow itself to be criticized. Period. Yes! They have horribly prevented all sorts of dubious types from spewing reams of deconstructive criticism by shutting down this thread or even deleting posts they didn't like! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jeri Date: 05 Mar 03 - 06:47 PM "This thread is proof that Mudcat Management cannot and will not allow itself to be criticized. Period." Anybody who doesn't think this is irony when it's said in a thread that's 221 posts long and consists largely of criticism needs to have the batteries replaced in their irony detector. I'm just not sure it was intended irony. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 05 Mar 03 - 07:30 PM Hello, how do you make your writing lean over like that? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: artbrooks Date: 05 Mar 03 - 07:50 PM Hi, John....assuming that you will come back here for the answer to your question....you put the characters "<i>" in front and "</i>" after the part you want to lean. You don't put in the "" marks! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 05 Mar 03 - 07:57 PM "in front"falling over writing"not falling over writing. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Amos Date: 05 Mar 03 - 09:38 PM Actually John, another three pints and eveyrthing you see will be leaning over like that! A |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 05 Mar 03 - 10:26 PM John, I think you were just funning us, but just in case, anotehr way of putting it: Type in this symbol: < Then the letter "i" without the quotation marks, with no space in between Then type in this symbol: > Then write the words which you want to fall over Then type this symbol again: < Then the "i" again but with a backward slash before it: /i Then this symbol again: > That's all there is to it, be sure there are no spaces between the symbols and the "i" and "/i" between each set. Hope that's clear as mud.:-) kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 05 Mar 03 - 10:43 PM oh my goodness - this is now a tech thread! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: michaelr Date: 05 Mar 03 - 10:52 PM Yep, this here is one thread that could benefit from proliferation control! Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:05 PM < i>This thread is proff that blar blar blar...< i/i> |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:08 PM it doesent work! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:30 PM sure it does John This is what I wrote to get the above (without the " ") "sure it does John" If you want it bold you do this: "If you want it bold you do this:" HTML instructions are placed between brackets < > you put an i in it for italics, a b for bold, etc. to stop the italics, you put a / in front of the i to tell it to stop. Now let's hope all of that worked . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:36 PM oops practicing HTML under the influence of Isle of Jura single malt - yeesh. once more unto the breech sure it does John This is what I wrote to get the above (without the " ") ""sure it does John"" If you want it bold you do this: ""If you want it bold you do this:"" |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:38 PM screw it |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 05 Mar 03 - 11:44 PM John, Blackcatter, check this first posting out. It's got all kinds of fun things to try: html thread. And, don't forget, it's okay to find an old html practice thread to try things out, or start a new one.:-) Have fun! |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: NicoleC Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:07 AM Hmm. Looks like the Mudcat window doesn't support a preformatted tag. Try here instead: Basic HTML Commands |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control (Tech Sidetrack) From: GUEST,Dale Date: 06 Mar 03 - 02:29 AM Tell you what. Every thing I know about HTML, I learned years ago from George Seto ~~ Right here. Simple, concise, and to the point. I would recommend that you don't use the BLINK command though. Gets rather tiresome in short order. Check out the rest of George's site while you are there. WORTHWHILE. Darn, don't think he's got a link back to the front door on that page. So here it is. And now, back to the top section. Oh, before I go, I think the thread arrangement was an extraordinary way to solve something that has been a problem for years. Don't see why it shouldn't make virtually everyone happy. There is bound to be a gray area as to what belongs where, but that is just one of those things to live with, not whine about. (See? letters falling over even as they get bolder than the rest.) |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:09 AM <i>this part will be leaning over</i> like this this part will be leaning over |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:11 AM I can do it big and red, too! <font color=Black> <i>this part will be leaning over</i><br> </font> |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:19 AM well...almost...lets see if I did it this time <i>this part will be leaning over</i> I don't 'do' anything except use this little program....read and be amazed....sHTML-from a guy in Denmark |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:24 AM the deal is, to show the angle brackets without actually making them work, you have to enter all those ampersands and semicolons and such... and I am too lazy to memorize it all, so the program does it for me..(IF I have the right stuff on my clipboard..*grin*) |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:46 AM Don't see why it shouldn't make virtually everyone happy. There is bound to be a gray area as to what belongs where, but that is just one of those things to live with, not whine about. Amen to that.............. How about it Joe? With Jeff's changes, are you now going to trust the posters to exert self-control or just carry on with your personal whines to justify your ill-starred Thread Proliferation Control and witch hunts? As far as policy on specific types of humor, the only rule is "no personal attacks." As for starting threads, the rule-of-thumb is that only one thread on any given topic should be active at any given time. If there are 15 Iraq threads on the Forum Menu today, some are going to be consolidated. Five is tolerable. Fifteen is ridiculous. Yes, you're encouraged to add to existing threads. But refreshing sixteen Shatner threads or twenty Iraq threads is not going to make people happy. We want people to be happy here... -Joe Offer- The key to the above being 'rule-of-thumb'. Not enforced with an 'iron rule'. If you really want this person to be happy, and it is not all that difficult, will you please exert a little self-control and leave things well alone? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Amos Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:57 AM ill-starred Thread Proliferation Control and witch hunts Roger, you're being patently unfair. Joe has not been hunting for witches, and his TPC guidelines seem to be workable enough. Consolidating like threads as an administrative action is an intelligent thing to do. Removing slanderous ad hominem attacks is a decent thing to do. Slamming the volunteers who are working to keep this place alive is not either. So what is the problem in specific, really? A |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: JennyO Date: 06 Mar 03 - 12:31 PM Hey I never knew about this before! Jenny |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:09 PM Way to go, Jenny O! Roger, how about you take your own advice: will you please exert a little self-control and leave things well alone? Joe hasn't done anything like what you are characterising over the past few days and like I said, you certainly remember how to beat something into the ground. Here's a little diversion for you: Oh, Spawdarlin'...how about you and I run away to the back garden with the faeries, kick up some litter, and carry on some lovestruck caterwaulin'? C'mon, Peaches, baby...it'll be entertaining and fun! cynicalol'kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 06 Mar 03 - 02:56 PM Amos I would hope that a good re-read of this thread will demonstrate where the unfairness lies. It is the 'heavy touch', it is unnessary and simply not proportionate to the problem. Which Jeff with a light touch and without upetting anyone, has largely now solved anyway. Joe's over-reaction seems to come from the idea that there are 'Mudcat people'like Joe, who are under constant 'attack' from people, presumably not 'Mudcat people' like Joe. Which appears to be just about anyone who does not totally agree with him or produce a post or thread that is not exactly to Joe's taste, or up to Joe's test of worthyness. Not agreeing with Joe or anyone else is not 'slamming' them. However, it surely is not necessary for Joe to provide propaganda (biased information), to demonstrate the wisdom and justice of his editing powers? Amos did I really make a demand? as Joe claims? The actual words are all here. I am not asking anyone to take sides, there is far too much of that already, but my concern was moderately expressed, but quite clearly not moderately dealt with. As demonstated, Joe sees everything as a challenge to his authority or an attempt and has a knee-jerk reaction to this. When you happily place yourself in this position, you must surely expect a few bullets to fired at you. If you insist on just firing them back, or verbal jousting', with the contributors, even the identified and more civil ones, I feel it risks making a bad situation into an impossible one. What is engendered by this paranoia, is a climate where folk feel they should be commenting on the suitablity, validity, category, length grammar, spelling etc, and bringing the abberant behaviour of others to the attention of 'Miss. Rather than just joining the discussion in the thread or just ignoring it. Our many-named shadows, whatever their motivations and short-commings, are clearly not stupid and have and will exploit this weakness to the full. You asked me to specify - I have asked more than once, if the originator of a thread, or poster concerned can be asked for their view before any major judgements are imposed and actioned on their posts. Not an unreasonable request, I would have thought to achieve the aims you refer to..... But where is the answer? Despite all the references to Joe, this is NOT a personal attack on him, as I recognise his sincerity and many qualities. However it is strong criticism of what he has done here, appears to be blind to and has every intention of continuing to do, despite the views expressed here of a number of people who do not support it. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 06 Mar 03 - 03:19 PM Roger, you've done a LOT of presuming about Joe, stating things that just are not true. Also, have you noticed you are the only one still going on and on about this? Everyone else is moving on with the wonderful elegant solution which Jeff implemented. It is also disingeuous for you to claim it is not a personal attack on Joe, when you use such declarative statements as you've done. Don't you remember the many, many times when Joe and I locked heads on some issue? Several others have done so, too. No one is walking in lockstep with him or anyone else on this website. Get a grip and let it go. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Ed. Date: 06 Mar 03 - 03:49 PM Well said, Kat This might be deleted as a 'personal attack' but I'll say it anyway: Shambles, you're acting like an idiot. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 06 Mar 03 - 03:50 PM I had a teacher in high school once, who, after a LONG discussion about how much freedom kids should have in class, walked in the next day and wrote on the blackboard: "This class is run democratically!!" ...........signed, King Harmon I we got the point, and he was a rather benevolent despot as it it turned out. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Mar 03 - 06:01 PM Shambles, I think I know how you feel. I certainly know your position, You've made it clear several times in this thread. You are entitled to feel this way, even somewhat justified. Joe is not entirely impartial, he does express his own opinions, and there were errors made in the handling of the PEL threads. Joe has obliquely said all of these things in his answers to you on this thread. The problem will be largely alleviated by the segregation of the "BS" threads and, since Joe has admitted that errors were made, it is less likely to happen again. If you are looking for a direct and formal apology, it is my guess that your frustration will continue. I believe that Joe feels he has been sufficiently contrite and wants to move to the next topic. Rick's point, "If not Joe, then Who?" is very salient. There are a lot of fora out there, very few have that combination of warmth and spirit that this one does. I am sure that the MudCat would not be what it is without Joe's hand. I have met Joe in person and will tell you that he is a very warm and likeable man. He is a man and sometimes men make mistakes. Why don't we forgive him and move on. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Amos Date: 06 Mar 03 - 09:16 PM Well, Sham-me-bye, I think it's a case where an administrative or management action is taken that some members of the group disagree with, while others do not. You've communicated your position well, and Joe's is also understandable, but he's the guy who gets to make the call. The reason is that he is taking the responsibility, and has been doing so for many years. Hope you can live with it. In the business world this sort of thing happens quite often, and everyone decides to either suck it up, walk, or work to improve it over time. A |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 09 Mar 03 - 04:58 AM So, that's mostly the facts, plus a small dose of my personal opinion. It's unfair to condemn me for my opinion if you fail to state my opinion correctly I AM fair, but I AM human. And I'm here to enjoy myself, not to be put on trial. Joe expects to be treated fairly and not to be placed on trial, but is that realistic as he is also keen (far too keen, I think) to judge others – He claims that he is fair- but who is to be the final judge of that? Well Joe is. So what of those who feel that Joe has or will treat them unfairly? They may expect to want pass judgement too – and they will. On and on it will go, just like this thread, which remember Joe himself started, before Jeff's technical changes made all this overt CONTROL unnecessary. Joe claims to want to make people happy. People may well BE happy if their post appears where and how they intended, they may not be so happy with Joe's judgement of their intentions after they find he has already taken action. They may well be happier if they are consulted first, so why can they not be consulted? Kat said; Joe hasn't done anything like what you are characterising over the past few days and like I said, you certainly remember how to beat something into the ground. And Roger, you've done a LOT of presuming about Joe, stating things that just are not true. Amos said Roger, you're being patently unfair. Joe has not been hunting for witches, and his TPC guidelines seem to be workable enough. You are welcome to your opinions but the FACTS are in this thread and they tell a quite different story. Did I demand the thread be re-linked? Or did I ask politely and was that politely-made request granted? The list of subjects, threads and manner of post that Joe has expressed his strong reservations about are many and the contributors to these may not think any future judgements made on them, by Joe to be fair. But of course although Joe expects to be treated fairly on not to be placed on trial, WE should have no such expectations, but just have to accept a management decision? I just do not think that the many hats Joe wants to wear, can work and fear the attempt will result in even more problems, without a re-think. Jack the Sailor I don't expect it but I do not see any contrition, oblique or otherwise. The error referred to, is what Joe's refers to as his original 'mistake' - in linking the thread and following my wishes? Subsequently deciding that my wishes were to be ignored and Jeri overruled, because as Joe explains, his opinion is unquestionably superior to mine (and everyone else it would appear), is justified and supported as a necessary management decision. I seriously question not Joe's worth or indeed his fallibility, he is not alone it that, but I do question his suitability and ability to operate this function, without creating even more argument and conflict. The lightest of light touches are required and what has been demonstrated is not that vital quality. Or recognise that folk will see his views/commentslikes and dislikes as editorial policy, even when they are not in brown text. Perhaps the brown text can be limited and confined only to matters of fact? Amos sad: In the business world this sort of thing happens quite often, and everyone decides to either suck it up, walk, or work to improve it over time. If this were the business would or a Government Dept, it may indeed make more sense (however many businesses do fold because of these things). But that is one of the reasons we go online. This isn't the business world and it doesn't make sense here. Order is not so important here as the friendly free exchange of views and mutual respect. Imposing order at the expense of this, with a heavy touch, whilst maintaining it is the opposite, and at the risk of yet more hostility, certainly makes no sense. Don't see why it shouldn't make virtually everyone happy. There is bound to be a gray area as to what belongs where, but that is just one of those things to live with, not whine about. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Big Mick Date: 09 Mar 03 - 02:08 PM Roger (Shambles), will you ever stop? Jayzus, my friend, but you just keep flogging it. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 09 Mar 03 - 09:26 PM It is nice to see some housekeeping.
Well Done!
For example, there were those two messy threads spawned through KatLaughing regarding Cranky Yankee and the Rockability Hall of Frame. They were here in the afternoon and tonight they are gone - no trace -all cleaned up - no embarasing kitty-litter scattered around - not even a lingering trace of scent.
Sincerely,
Perhaps, that embarassing advertisment for improving feline libido helped give the thread its ax. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: catspaw49 Date: 10 Mar 03 - 07:13 AM Well hell Garg, since your one post was so offensive as to delete an entire thread, then maybe you could repost it here and let's see if it works on this one? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: SINSULL Date: 10 Mar 03 - 07:20 AM I requested that the threads or at the least the offending posts be removed. Nothing to do with kat. PM me if you object. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 10 Mar 03 - 08:46 AM Following Joe's example given in his original post in this thread - the following is also copied from the Help Forum. Could folk be encouraged to encourage each other to ingore subjects they do not care for, rather than the idea that these should be banned? Could folk be encouraged to encourage others to just 'mind their own business' and not be encouraged to introduce others as candidates for censorship? Could folk be encouraged to encourage each other to confine their requests for any later editorial changes to their own postings? Could folk be encouraged to encourage each other to just get on with the discussion in the thread, and not to dicuss and pass judgement on everyone else's right to say what they wish? Could folk be encouraged to encourage each other to use tolerance and self-control, rather than expecting control to be imposed? Could folk who have the power to control, present the example and encourage each other to exert self-control and a light, preferably invisible, touch and try not to give the impression of Big Brother elite grouping of chosen ones, eager to pass their final judgements? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 10 Mar 03 - 09:46 AM There is your man Catspaw - Sinsull has caught the sight and ears of the angels - One word from him and entire threads can be deleated.
|
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST, herc Date: 10 Mar 03 - 04:31 PM Please, Joe. I chose a consistent name. Please don't make me ever write "ROFLMAO 'spaw!" . . . Dan All is forgiven, Dan, but PLEASE don't ever say ROFLMAO. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 10 Mar 03 - 04:42 PM You know GoyleGarg, if you'd use your membership which has been available to you for quite some time, you could profess your unrequited love for me by PM and not subject all these kind people to such undying declarations of affection. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: catspaw49 Date: 10 Mar 03 - 04:46 PM I'm waiting for him to keep sucking up to his newest and latest "Main Man"....Sinsull!!! Any other fine words for Sinsull Garg??? You're going to need a few............. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: SINSULL Date: 10 Mar 03 - 05:18 PM gargoyle, SIGH... SINS |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 11 Mar 03 - 12:36 AM Spaw - you got it wrong - I am not the one who wants threads deleated.
You on the other-hand should surely pay homage to anyone with high enought connections to deleat two threads with one request.
Sincerely,
Cripes LaughKat ... I've tried over and over and over to reclaim my identity - but it is forever lost - tossed out by the cruel-hearted Joe. Will YOU help me find it again? Who am I and where is my cookie? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: catspaw49 Date: 11 Mar 03 - 01:00 AM I am paying you the homage Garg ol' chum......Ya' see Sinsull only wanted a couple of offensive posts deleted but you claim to have had the real effect with just one message about feminine libido or some such nonsense AND you say "WELL DONE" to the thread deletions as well in your previous post. So I feel that all of my "homage" is due you for having such great power! And like I said, try reposting it here on this thread and maybe it will do away with this one also!!! Then you'd be 3 for 3!!! What a day you could have.......get yourself pissdrunk and see if you can find any woman who might consider having sex with you...........uh, well, that's a little too much to ask, but go ahead and repost your ad here and if it erases THIS thread then you can at least get pissdrunk! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Nigel Parsons Date: 11 Mar 03 - 03:48 AM Shambles post above: Following Joe's example given in his original post in this thread - the following is also copied from the Help Forum. may be a little misleading. Whilst the message is truly copied from the Help Forum it is also the first post in a thread initiated by Shambles. Someone in that thread pointed out that "Could folk be encouraged to encourage each other to just get on with the discussion in the thread, and not to dicuss and pass judgement on everyone else's right to say what they wish? " is excellent advice which should be taken on board by all (Shambles included) Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Wolfgang Date: 11 Mar 03 - 06:48 AM What a pleasant surprise when I came back after a ten day break to Mudcat and there was no BS-thread among the first ten threads. I had a closer look and there was no BS even among the first twenty threads. I nearly started a thread about this rare occurence. But when I failed to spot a BS-thread even among the first thirty threads I got suspicious. I looked at the whole page and I saw that what I had presumed at first to be a change of minds was merely a change of format. Nevertheless, it is a good change and I support it together with the thread consolidation policy. The thread consolidation policy may lead to questionable decisions in single cases, but on the whole it is a great help. Thanks for that effort. I have learned here that stepping on peoples' toes sometimes by telling them that their PET-theme could do with less threads is worth the initial bad feelings in the long run. They go through the stages of indignation ("this is a free forum", "censorship") and misstating the intentions of the critcs ("why shouldn't we talk about this theme, it is relevant for musicians") until all (well, nearly all) of them realise that it is not the theme as such that bothers the other posters but their way of presentation. And then they change their ways. Tell the people at the neighbouring table in a Cafe that they are too noisy they often jump on you at first (verbally) but, in the long run, most of them will make the Cafe more agreeable for others by calming down a bit. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: greg stephens Date: 11 Mar 03 - 08:02 AM I shared Wolfgang's experience, coming to Mudcat a while back and thinking "where have all the Iraq threads gone?". I just assumed, with a sigh of relief, that people got bored. Then I discovered after a couple of days in newly separated BS section. Well, obviously this must have been well-trhrashed out before the decision was made, and I havent got time to read all the posts in this thread. But as I wasnt around for the discussions, I'll put my opinion here, too late, but there you go. I preferred it when all the threads were mixed together. I believe there was always a facility to filter out BS threads if you wanted to. I think this division is separating peopel into two categories. I have been posting to discussions on music threads and kind of missing familiar names who I would have expected to be adding stuff. Only to find the people are still around, but gabbinbg away down in BS land. Sure all those Iraq and PEL threads were a pain, but who was made to read them? Nobody. I think a Mudcat divided into separate piles is like spearate heaps of ingredients: not at all the same as a square meal. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Nigel Parsons Date: 11 Mar 03 - 08:17 AM Greg: Joe's got that one sorted. Here's the quote from another thread: Subject: RE: Tech: As Above So Below From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 04 Mar 03 - 12:23 AM Aw, Lepus, we may disregard your opinion - but we think you're cute. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For you who like things the way they used to be, bookmark this link: http://www.mudcat.org/threads.cfm?mixbs=yes -Joe Offer- Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: greg stephens Date: 11 Mar 03 - 08:40 AM Thnks, Nigel, I didnt realise that was an option. But it's a pity there's no little thing to click on explaining that at the top of the list. How is someone coming into Mudcat expected to find that out? Maybe I'm missing something, but what would be wrong with Mudcat as it was, but with a button to click on if you want to separate the threads into two groups? I appreciate I may be going over old ground, but I've been away, and I can't help thinking that what I am saying is blindingly obvious. What am I missing? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: JennyO Date: 11 Mar 03 - 08:53 AM I like the separation of threads, but, as Greg says, how would a person coming into Mudcat for the first time know they can have it the old way if they want? I would suggest a clicky for that, somewhere near the top so that people can see it. Jenny |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Nigel Parsons Date: 11 Mar 03 - 09:00 AM JennyO: Presumably someone coming into Mudcat for the first time would not know there was an 'old way' to have it. At least this way newcomers to the 'Cat will get a first impression of mainly Music threads. Greg: I don't think there was a lot of discussion prior to the split being made. Joe saw it as an option which was worth doing, and which did not deprive the 'Cat of anything, merely re-organised. The general consensus on the move seems to be supportive, and I fully agree. Nigel |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: JennyO Date: 11 Mar 03 - 09:16 AM Maybe I should rephrase that and say "a different way". My point is that without something to indicate it, such as the clicky I suggested, a new person, not having followed all the threads, might not know there was an alternative, and they might prefer it that way. At least they could try it out and decide which they like. Jenny |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: artbrooks Date: 11 Mar 03 - 09:38 AM In theory, newcomers should/can/ought to take a look at the FAQ sometime shortly after joining. Yes, I know that this is probably wishful thinking, but all of the instructions can't be at the top of the first page. I suggest, and I will put this on the HELP forum as well, that something be added to the FAQ that explains the thread breakdown and gives explicit directions for the "mixed" and "split" options. I looked, but I didn't see anything about this already there. OK? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: greg stephens Date: 11 Mar 03 - 10:04 AM Well, like I say, it may be a purely subjective impression, but I think the current division is distracting some old friends and acquaintances into lurking too long in the BS swamp, and not visiting the sunlit uplands of the music threads as often as I would like. I can get 80 posts in no time about the verbal use of nouns down in BS, and a miserable 5 or 10 when I've tried to discuss Iraqi or Zimbabwe musicians making folk music in Britain. So I guess I'm just having a whinge, but I feel it would have been different in the Good Old Days of a couple of weeks ago. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: katlaughing Date: 11 Mar 03 - 10:34 AM Ah, garg, you're being disingeuous with me, again, but the love still shines through. I've got it straight from Max-the Founder, himself, that all you have to do is reset your cookie. If you forgot how, which I doubt, you know you can ask him, Jeff, or Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 11 Mar 03 - 12:40 PM Tell the people at the neighbouring table in a Cafe that they are too noisy they often jump on you at first (verbally) but, in the long run, most of them will make the Cafe more agreeable for others by calming down a bit. Wolfgang, I have a lot of respect for your views but we must go to different watering holes. The table you refer to may will calm down on its own in time, but the course of action you advise, is more likely to make things worse. You will be told to mind your own business and they would be right, as it would be the management's business to deal with this. And you could always just leave them to it. The anology is also faulty, as in order to hear the Mudcat 'noise', you have to open the offending thread, unless it is just the 'noise' of other people's thread titles that offend. If it is this or the fact the the threads are on subjects that have been well-covered before, then perhaps is showing tolerence a better and fairer option than expecting other peoples' 'Pet' threads to be controlled? Fairness and tolerence used to be things you would always find on this forum, sadly it appears to have been replaced by something else..........Can we possibly give this BS split a chance to bring these qualities back, before we just carry on minding everyone else's business and fighting shadows? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 11 Mar 03 - 01:13 PM "You will be told to mind your own business and they would be right, as it would be the management's business to deal with this. " well, whether the analogy is right or not, when there is a dispute among patrons/members, at some point it DOES fall to the management to deal with it, and no doubt someone will disagree with the decision. Management could ignore it and let the parties wrangle, or they could attempt to DO something. In this case, management chose to have a "no wrangling" section of the café, and those who choose BS 'noise' are now asked to take it down there ¬, with occasional sanctions for those who don't. (It is a pure judgement call whether those loud folks are making TOO much noise...how else can it be done?) As I read the various threads where this issue is raised, it seems to me that management's decision is supported by something like 10-15 to 1. As in restaurants where "no smoking" is now common, there are those who will NEVER be pleased, and will always feel they are being unfairly treated. |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: The Shambles Date: 11 Mar 03 - 01:58 PM I think we are in danger of forgetting the number we first thought of. Joe's responds to us complaining about noise from others, by using his personal judgement and placing us where he decides and this encourages yet more complaints from both sides. And this is supported by some but not by others. In the meantime Jeff has segregated the noisy from the not so noisy, with no fuss and little pain, making Joe's contentious judgement unnecessary and one would think, making us all happy? But no, we still MUST have it, even though the 'non wranglers' are seated together and out of sight of the original complainers? Why? Because we just have gotten used to complaining and having the management jump to, with a heavy-hand? Perhaps those who still must constantly complain about what other users are doing can find somewhere else to eat? Or the next thing is that they will be demanding to have to have 'bouncers' on the door, preventing the noisy from even entering. Jeff has made all this unnecesaary, let's please just calm down give this light management touch, a chance to work, before we resort to the 'bouncers'? |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Bill D Date: 11 Mar 03 - 05:44 PM okey-dokey |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: Blackcatter Date: 11 Mar 03 - 07:21 PM Well, there's one thing that the music / BS split has proven - for the past few weeks of its existance, it's easy to see that BS threads are a good deal less numerous than Music threads. pax yall |
|
Subject: RE: Thread Proliferation Control From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 13 Mar 03 - 12:20 AM Interesting - how all some BS'ers are desperatly attempting to make shit smell like music - no matter how contrived.
With just a little more time - and the correct pre-fix - the Bottom of the Cat will soon provide ballast to balance the top of the craft.
Cranky Yankee replies to slander |
| Share Thread: |