 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Guest Postings
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST Date: 31 Dec 03 - 10:49 AM Yeah, except the issue isn't disgruntled former clones, it is disgusted forum users, fed up with the witch hunts, the jackboot clones, and the horrifically bad maintenance of the system, which goes up and down like a crackwhore on Sunset Blvd. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Big Mick Date: 31 Dec 03 - 11:32 AM Which completely explains why folks are leaving in droves, and never starting threads every time the 'Cat goes down saying how happy they are its back, eh? sez Mick, tongue planted firmly in cheek I sure am glad you folks are here to help us muddle through. Mick, who is quite sure that you guys will still be here flogging this in a year or two. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 03 - 11:39 AM I am beginning to understand how Republicans feel!! Sheeshe!! If you Invisible Forces for the World Resurrection of Generalized Namelessness and Socialistic Dissipation of Everything will just stick to specifics we'll be fine. Your armwaving is beginning to make you look like delusory herons or something. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST Date: 31 Dec 03 - 11:50 AM Actually, those folks are the ones with Mudcat addictions. It has nothing to do with this forum being a great place, it has to do with them needing their fix. It is the same small group of people over and over again who contribute to those types of threads. Just like it is the same people who manipulate the guest/member thing over and over. Like you and Jeri, for instance. In case you hadn't noticed Big Mick, in the other threads where the Queen and her Dark Prince of Witchhunts have vented their aggressions on anonymous posting, not too many people are jumping on your vendetta bandwagon. Just the usual handful of Mudcat regular suspects. You clearly have blinders on when it comes to who is flogging the dead horses--because it isn't something done exclusively by the forum users you and Jeri personally detest. Jeri and Big Mick are the jackboot clones most obviously obsessed with this creepy stalking thing, of "exposing" (as Jeri put it in another thread yesterday) people's "true" identities. catspaw and katlaughing less so, but you have the two of them hoodwinked because of the "stolen identity" fear mongering gene katlaughing was apparently born into her perpetual victimhood with. And there isn't a bigger bully on this forum than catspaw. When pointing your fingers at other people while calling them bullies, etc. it would be judicious of you to remember the majority of fingers are pointing back at yourselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 03 - 11:54 AM It sounds like you are being equally accusatory, and the rule of fingers has just as much bearing on both sides of this haunted mirror, Guest! Why is one set of arm-waving accusations more compelling than another? You erode your own arguments by being Nameless -- don't you know that? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: manitas_at_work Date: 31 Dec 03 - 11:58 AM Hell, Guest it's a website not a place where you have to live! All this talk about peasants amd conspiracy is nonsense. It's a toy, someone else's toy, and if they don't want to play the way you do you'll have to get your mummy and daddy to buy you one of your own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST Date: 31 Dec 03 - 12:08 PM "Why is one set of arm-waving accusations more compelling than another?" Because the worst abuses are being committed by those who hold power, against those who don't. The playing field is tilted heavily to the side of those who can cut off anyone's arms on a whim, and do so regularly. I don't live here manitas. I just roost here now and then, like the crow on the cradle. Nor do I care one iota if the place were to be permanently unplugged at 12:01 a.m. 2004. Mudcat is one of several folk music forums on the internet. Pointing out the nasties in this one is one of my internet hobbies. It takes little thought, because the power abuses here are so blatantly obvious, except to those who are most addicted/invested in this place as their personal clubhouse. Anyone with any emotional distance here just doesn't engage in this petty bullshit, because they know there is real life out there, passing by those who spend all their time and energy in this web backwater. I figure anyone dumb enough to sign up for cookies and milk here, much less stupid enough to blindly and unquestioningly send their money into Max's black hole bank accounts, gets what they bloody well deserve from the place, frankly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: John MacKenzie Date: 31 Dec 03 - 12:26 PM Does the ability to post under the Guest disguise encourage, and/or breed schizophrenia?? Discuss. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST,Folkie the Guest Date: 31 Dec 03 - 12:55 PM If you think this is bad, you should see the Kingston Trio forum. It's completely censored from any critical thought. People keep analyzing Tom Dooley and asking for the chords for "Scotch & Soda." It is a complete joke. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 03 - 01:02 PM Good point, Folkie. As for crows and cradles, I agree with the carrion aspect. Incapable of creative action, the bitter soul hides in a cloud of anti-creative ones. Whatever camaraderie exists among regulars here has been built, message by message and day by day, by them and their creative actions. You will find that for the most part the only time they offer anything less than that is whent hey are addressing someone else's oppressing carping nattering whinging secretive nabobberies. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: John MacKenzie Date: 31 Dec 03 - 01:22 PM Amos my old mate, did you get a dictionary for Christmas? (¦¬{]> John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 03 - 01:24 PM LOL, Giok!! Nar, just a head of steam!! It starts my thesaurus rising up, y'know! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST Date: 31 Dec 03 - 01:32 PM Amos, not only are you king of the sycophant boot lickers, but you surely must be one of the most consistent defenders of the Mudcat status quo. You even have McGrath beat on that count. You have both my begrudging admiration for your consistency, and my sincere pity for your inability to cope with the cognitive dissonance emanating from this forum in any meaningful, healthy, functional way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Bill D Date: 31 Dec 03 - 02:34 PM aww, Guest...we LIKE our little MudWallow just as it is...cognitive dissonance and all! What a strange hobby, going about setting yourself up as a "higher moral authority" to critique what you perceive as OTHER'S foibles! (and didn't you read Shambles' note that *I* rank right up there with the best of the bootlickers?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST Date: 31 Dec 03 - 02:46 PM What can I say BillD, except that some of us take great joy and glee in exposing hypocrisy, hyperbole, and two faced duplicity. There are actually people much better at than I am in this world--as I said, for me it is just a hobby. In the grand scheme of things, taking joy in exposing hypocrisy is no stranger than say, playing at war by particpating in "historic re-enactments". Talk about strange, deeply disturbing hobbies... BTW, I do agree you are one of the best boot lickers. But no one holds a candle to Amos in that department. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: artbrooks Date: 31 Dec 03 - 02:51 PM "Yawn" Like I said, close it down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 31 Dec 03 - 04:56 PM Could someone pleas epost teh words top "Crow on the Cradle" in this thread - it IS a music Forum, ya know -- and can we please have the verse about the carrot too? Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST Date: 31 Dec 03 - 05:35 PM For what it's worth Jeri - not all nameless GUESTs agree with the GUEST(s) who decry your alleged shortcomings. For the time I have been following your posts (a few years now), I have consistently found your perspective to be among the most rational, thoughtful, considerate, levelheaded and logical ones on this forum. And I think I've said so on more than one occasion, anonymously - so you know that I'm not just blowing sunshine. Again, FWIW, IMHO, YMMV and all those other cryptic acronyms.... Best wishes to you for a happy New Year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Dave the Gnome Date: 31 Dec 03 - 05:49 PM I am Spatacus... (Well, it's just as daft as the rest of this stuff...) HNY to one and all DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Amos Date: 31 Dec 03 - 05:51 PM Guest: You are of the Unbeing, as of now, as far as I am concerned. We're done. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: John MacKenzie Date: 31 Dec 03 - 06:22 PM A happy new year to all our readers. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Jeri Date: 31 Dec 03 - 06:53 PM Guest-who's-not-blowing-sunshine, thanks! I try. I believe few nameless regular GUESTs are troublemakers. The few just try very hard. I HAVE noticed nice ones! I tend to think that an individual who excuses their bullying by saying their hobby is "exposing hypocricy" probably really is exposing something. Having a nice argument with someone can be fun, but provoking someone whose life is such that they go out of their way to hurt people just feels mean. Anyway, I'm off to a party. A happy New Year to |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 Jan 04 - 12:25 AM I ghot the solution to those nosty GUEST postings. Posters posting as "GUEST" can only post to a thread named "BS: GUEST Postings - "Month/year".... :-) Robin Happy New Year here already in Oz... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 01 Jan 04 - 12:47 AM Gesut is bad-get lots gutes.john |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Shambles Date: 01 Jan 04 - 03:40 AM The answer to nasty guest postings was and is very simple. There is no need to ask a higher power to remove offending BS comments from a section of our forum set aside for BS. You use the edit button that we are all blessed with and simply not open the thread or post or indeed anything in the BS section. If you do see offending comments anywhere on our forum. you can just ingore them and not open the thread again. Too simple? The answer is simply that as comments that may offend you may not offend others and asking for threads to be closed - edited or moved only deprives others with different tastes - of the opportunity to respond. There has always been plenty of room for all our tastes on our forum. Our inability to tolerate our different tastes and fed by the current mania with asking for other's postings to be judged or deleted - is resulting in a situation where there will be only one taste to comform to. Our forum is and in my opinion should be just a mirror reflecting back what we all contribute. I suggest that it would be better if we all contributed on equal terms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Jan 04 - 10:35 AM The thread "Joe Pas is the greatest guitar virtuoso" is a fine reminder that not all guests get their kicks out of insulting and hurting other people. I've thoroughly enjoyed the thread and other than predictably smarmy Martin Gibson, all the postings have been positive and enjoyable. My hat off to Guest:Navigator, who is a youthful 80 and started the thread. The ultimate stupidity of many of the Guest postings is that they criticize Mudcat for being insular and self-satisfied in the most egotistical, smug, self-congratulatory, condesceding way. Maybe they should start their own website and call it holierthanthou.com. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Micca Date: 01 Jan 04 - 10:59 AM Do you mean this Jerry :o) holierthanthou? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Amos Date: 01 Jan 04 - 11:06 AM I suggest that it would be better if we all contributed on equal terms. A sane, thoughtful and fine suggestion. I submit for reflection that all those who post here DO start out on equal terms. All posts are not the same though, and if the extremists want to argue that vilification is equal to edification, they are just being obtuse. Reputations are not all the same either. They are built slowly with care (or not) for truth, humor, a decent respect for the affinities of the community, accuracy, value, and so on. But the posters ARE all eual and can change their posts and their reputations at will with a little effort. This is very much like "real" life in tthat respect. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Jan 04 - 11:36 AM LOL, micca: I think I'll change my e-mail to muddlingthrough.com Hope you're feeling better.. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Jan 04 - 11:52 AM The Crow on the Cradle The sheep's in the meadow The cow's in the corn Now is the time for a child to be born He'll laugh at the moon And cry for the sun And if it's a boy he'll carry a gun Sang the crow on the cradle And if it should be that this baby's a girl Never you mind if her hair doesn't curl With rings on her fingers And bells on her toes And a bomber above her wherever she goes Sang the crow on the cradle The crow on the cradle The black and the white Somebody's baby is born for a fight The crow on the cradle The white and the black Somebody's baby is not coming back Sang the crow on the cradle Your mother and father will sweat and they'll slave To build you a coffin and dig you a grave Hush-a-bye little one, never you weep For we've got a toy that can put you to sleep Sang the crow on the cradle Bring me my gun, and I'll shoot that bird dead That's what your mother and father once said The crow on the cradle, what can we do Ah, this is a thing that I'll leave up to you Sang the crow on the cradle Sang the crow on the cradle |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Jan 04 - 11:54 AM By Sydney Carter, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Nigel Parsons Date: 01 Jan 04 - 12:05 PM First two lines borrowed from "Little Boy Blue" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Jeri Date: 01 Jan 04 - 12:52 PM I don't believe it would be good to punish all of them because of a very small number of obnoxious posters. We have GUESTS who're civil, even kind, we have people who don't want to be the subject of rumor, or who they are to be more important than what they say, those who feel they're being stalked, as well as folks just dropping in to ask or answer a question. Jerry, that's the impression I get regarding accusatory posts, GUEST or otherwise. They point fingers at others because it's less frightening than looking in a mirror. The self-righteous attitude assures people focus, not on what they say but how they say it. The stated subject is simply an excuse, never intended to be taken seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 01 Jan 04 - 01:08 PM Jerry, OK, if your definition of smarmy is that I think jazz sucks I guess you will just have to deal with it. Actually, I like most swing, but find jazz guitar players like Joe Pass boring. Want to start a thread now about Wes Montgomery? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST,guessed. Date: 01 Jan 04 - 01:12 PM It is life. Some anonymous guests are nasty. Some named regulars are nasty. If you don't like something why not just push it to one side of your plate and get on with the rest. I was a named guest, until I saw all the back biting that goes on amongst the regulars...it is probably still going on. Some of you seem to have TOO much of a history, and it keeps overspilling into the threads at every opportunity. Nothing wrong with that, but then do not wonder why some of us do not wish to be part of it.Named regs bitching about something that occured between yourselves a couple of years ago, is not of general interest to many people visiting this site.It is confusing and ruins the run of a conversation, which was a criticism used against people choosing to be ANON. What I tend to do now, is run through the list of names associated with a thread, it is easy to avoid the obviously ranty ones, who dislike EVERYTHING that wasn't as it was at the start. And if someone doesn't want to respond to me because I AM a guest, that is fine with me, no complaints there,there are plenty of nice ones amongst you who do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Micca Date: 01 Jan 04 - 01:14 PM Jeri, my compliments, your second para is almost the perfect definition of a Troll!! A bit like the diffference between a Doughnut and an a**hole, both are round ,brown and perforated, both have their uses but one is pleasing to be around and the other not. nuff said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 01 Jan 04 - 01:39 PM My apology, Martin Gibson. It just seems like I rarely see you post a message that isn't contrary. How about YOU starting a thread about something you feel positive about? Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST Date: 01 Jan 04 - 02:22 PM Jeri - A fine way to start off the first day of the New Year, by hitting the proverbial nail squarely on the proverbial head (re your 01 JAN 04 - 12:52PM). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST Date: 01 Jan 04 - 02:59 PM I'm a nice guest. Happy new year to EVERYONE and may all your dreams come true. From a nameless folkie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Jan 04 - 03:38 PM Nothing whatsoever anyone could object to in a handle like GUEST,guessed. It makes it possible to reply to a post without going through the rigmarole of copying the date and time and that; ut alkso measn that if anyone else wants to identify which post the reply is referring to, they do not have to go through an equally cumbersome ritual. Nobody objects to anonymity as such in the slightest, that I've ever seen. Most people here have always been anonymous, and everyone is as anonymnous as they choose to be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 Jan 04 - 05:40 PM I don't have any real problem with "GUEST, something" - teh only problem is that you can't be sure who you are talking to - I had a Schizophrenic manager at work for 10 years - life was not pleasant, apart from my career being destroyed... Thanks McGrath for the song! Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: The Shambles Date: 02 Jan 04 - 09:45 AM A sane, thoughtful and fine suggestion. I submit for reflection that all those who post here DO start out on equal terms. Amos I can only beleive that you are being deliberately obtuse and simply ignoring the evidence being provided here. Perhaps you could reflect on this evidence? There are now a numberless amount of unknown posters (i.e. the 'clones')who are not posting on equal terms. I cannot censor their contributions even if they publicly call me names like "idiot" (like in this thread) but they can censor mine - as if I used such language - this could be construed as an abusive personal attack. Or requests to close the thread would be made because others thought the contents to be unsuitable - and the thread will be closed - as this one was. The reasons for this or who was responsible and why it was susequently re-opened have yet to be made public. These few have the power in unknown varying degrees - to censor the postings of everyone else. Despite the often quoted and well-believed concept that these powers are rarely exercised and only used for abusive posts - the evidence provided here - which is in no way the whole story and is only that that I have stumbled over recently - demonstrates a different story. There are many occasions where threads and post (even BS threads and including this one) are closed, deleted, moved, edited or otherwise censored on grounds such as the contribution not conforming to the individual 'clone's' concept of: 1 What can be understood. 2 Is political (i.e The Menorial Thread). 3 Exceeding some unspecified quota of postings. And just about any other reason. posts are not the same though, and if the extremists want to argue that vilification is equal to edification, they are just being obtuse. Those that may argue this may well be obtuse but anyone who argues that abitary and unaccountable censorship of our postings on our forum is equal to any degree of freedom of expression - is being equally obtuse and ignoring all the painful lessons of our history. If you contend that some form of censorship of our forum is necessary - would it be unreasonable to ask and to expect to be told what the rules were, when they can be exercised and by whom? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Bill D Date: 02 Jan 04 - 10:50 AM the RULES?...you KNOW the basic rules, Shambles...but you would never in a million years accept that part of the rules that requires 'some' arbitrary decisions that you might quibble with. In any case where editing/moderating/censorship is employed in any degree, there will be someone who disagrees with it, in part or in whole. Therefore, I would describe the basic rules once more:(MY description only) Max is in charge...he has decided that some things would be better edited. He has designated 2 people to be in charge of this. They have several helpers. This system is designed to 'reduce' duplications, mistakes, incoherence, personal attacks, SPAM, and blatent, abusive trolling. MOST of these efforts go to simple 'housekeeping' chores, NOT to censorship. Your objections, after all the rhetoric, boil down to simply that YOU DON'T LIKE IT! There is no doubt....everyone understands that you don't like it, and mostly, your objections are left un-edited and on the record, as is much of the blather and trolling that goes on. Joe has repeatedly noted that he censors as little as possible...it's just that YOU want a different set of guidelines. I don't see why you persist...perhaps all the efforts to overturn PELS (a just cause) have made "righteous indignation" a major hobby, but in this case you are in the minority. You have added invective like "witchfinder" and "bootlicker" to the discussion, as if THAT will make your point better....did you never hear that "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST Date: 02 Jan 04 - 10:56 AM You know, the Mudcat status quo looks very much like a right wing, neo-con presidential administration I've heard about... Amos labels anyone who disagrees with or crticize the status quo as "extremists"... Big Mick acts like Max's Karl Rove advisor. And I'm sorry but, although Jeri is usually very level headed and reasonable, she also has this McCarthyite streak that is about a mile wide. The desire on the part of the defenders of the Mudcat status quo to arbitrarily sanitize this web site of so-called personal attacks (while personally attacking anyone who disagrees with them in a very nasty manner, as Shambles has pointed out) and "out" anonymous posters, doesn't do much for the ambiance around here. As another guest pointed out, all this petty personal squabbling truly does get in the way of decent conversations. And again, I'm sorry, but I have a real problem with the hypocrisy of making nasty, personal attacks on people whom are deemed "not nice" to the friends of the Mudcat elite. That is REALLY what this all boils down to. Petty tyranny over personal loyalties. I mean, Big Mick can't even distinguish between the criticisms of Jon Freeman and Shambles. Those perfectly legitimate criticisms, made in genuine attempts to make Mudcat a better place, not a worse one, are not indistinguishable. The concerns each of them expressed were quite different. Yet they have both been painted with the same broad, black brush. And in Jon Freeman's case, tarred and feathered to boot. At the root of much of the forum angst is the demonization of those who choose to use the guest log-in without filling in the from blank. As many have noted in the past, this is a very easy thing to either 1) change and require something be typed into the 'from' line before posting is allowed, or; 2) police and filter out truly offensive material. But the offensive posting and personal attacks posted engaged in by so many members makes #2 a moot point here. It works really well in most moderated forums, but not here. So we are left with this bad taste in our mouths, guests and members alike, about the way the arbitrary, unbalanced, unfair, and bigoted way this forum is run. Now, a few posters choose to go the bootlicker route, and will do anything to stay on the good side of the clones. The majority of posters here just shut up and take it. And a few of us choose neither of the above options, and pick and choose the battles we fight here, as we would do anywhere we encounter this level of dysfunctionalism in our communities, online or off. One thing I do agree with. It isn't going to change, as long as Max owns the server, and the current crop of clones remain in charge. To be sure, there is no other online folk music forum I have encountered that has this level of ill will towards the people who use the forum, either occassionally or regularly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST,guest Date: 02 Jan 04 - 10:59 AM Will you named regulars please STOP fighting.................it is boring/hysterical, and gives us guests a bad name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Amos Date: 02 Jan 04 - 11:20 AM Shambles, you're twisting my point. Any of those who serve as clones are posting on the same footing as anyone else. If they started posting personal assaults their stuff would be messed weith jsut as surely as yours or anyone else's who did the same. That they are also clones (meaning they can fix posts) and you are not is because for whatever reason they are trusted to exercise mature judgement. And when they do so it is primarily to masintain an atmosphere where people won't get hurt, balanced against letting this flow as much as possible without interference. Sure it is a judgement call. But you may have forgotten that we have seen many instances of what happens when there is NO editing at all. It gets wild, the invective gets corrosive as hell, people come in and tromp on personalities of others for no reason except bile, and a lot of pain and bull gets generated which serves no good and no purpose. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: Bill D Date: 02 Jan 04 - 12:59 PM ...these complaints are getting to sound more & more like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" The complaintant simply states that management is being unfair and biased, and that by definition, anyone who agrees with management are bootlicking toadys. The argument is circular...and difficult to counter without resorting to the same techniques. Did you ever read the notice that appears on the doors to shopping malls (USA, anyway) that says, in rough translation, "yes, this is an open, public place, but that doesn't mean that you necessarily can do as you please here. The management IS in charge and reserves the right to oversee what goes on here."? think about it... If you choose to take my defense of this policy as indicating that I am either 'one of the "elite"' or a bootlicker to the elite..*grin*, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: John MacKenzie Date: 02 Jan 04 - 01:21 PM Well I've had a couple of doubts about Mudcat, and I've mentioned them at the time, but I'm not going to keep repeating them as if that made them more valid. It's a bit like democracy, not a perfect system, but the best we've tried so far. To those who don't think it's being done properly, please would you suggest the remedy to your complaint, and make your criticism constructive rather than destructive. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST Date: 02 Jan 04 - 01:22 PM "Any of those who serve as clones are posting on the same footing as anyone else. If they started posting personal assaults their stuff would be messed weith jsut as surely as yours or anyone else's who did the same." This is just plain wrong. Joe Offer, for one, is constantly posting personal attacks in his little colored letter inserts, against posters he personally dislikes. Because he hasn't done it to you Amos, doesn't mean he isn't doing it. The same is also true of certain clones (catspaw and Big Mick particularly, though katlaughing and Jeri occassionally jump on the posters too), who personally attack/engage in name calling of the poster they feel they must "deal" with--they rarely keep their personal animosity towards that poster to themselves, which is what good forum moderators always do. Their behavior only aggravates and escalates situations that could easily be controlled without creating a negative atmosphere, if anyone here just understood how to moderate a discussion forum. As to the public space thing, the only notices I've seen posted at shopping malls/public spaces that are privately owned, are on solicitation, leafletting, and banning guns. It doesn't say anything about management harrassing and haranguing patrons they decide "are a pain in the ass". But so many of the regular members and clones here don't ever participate in any other online communities, they have no standards to use to compare this place with, which is also part of the problem. For instance, I can't imagine the regulars at rec.music.folk or uk.music.folk, putting up with the likes of catspaw, much less giving him the keys to the house. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings From: GUEST Date: 02 Jan 04 - 01:27 PM GUEST 02 JAN 04 - 10:56AM "And I'm sorry but, although Jeri is usually very level headed and reasonable, she also has this McCarthyite streak that is about a mile wide." Can't say as I've ever seen it; that's not to say I've seen every post she's ever submitted, but...perhaps you could provide examples on which you stake your claim. |