BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread

Subject: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amergin
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 03:16 PM

Just thought I would create a specific thread for Shambles to piss and moan in...instead of his hijacking interesting threads. Here ya go, Roger. Have at it...

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 04:51 PM

The following link is a list of all my 6258 'hijackings' to The Mudcat Forum - since 24 August 1998. So you can read all of these and then judge for yourself if these are positive contributions. Or are - as described by my friend here.

The Shambles

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 05:53 PM

Amergin..that's hardly a constructive way to cope with the issue. Various people have presented their opinions...including me...but more threads we don't need.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Mudcat over policed?>
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 05:58 PM

Now the idea of a separate thread about the concerns raised by Shambles might make sense, but the heading by Amergin is pointlessly provocative. The paradox is that this is just the kind of thread title that tends to get threads yanked, but clearly Shambles would be against that happening.

However I think the heading I've put in over this post would be an improvement. (And my answer to the question I raise there would be "No, but it's not a silly question")

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 06:23 PM

Round up the usual suspects!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 06:34 PM

Maybe personal messages would be better for this, no?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 07:27 PM

Very juvenile thread... purposely intimidative and abusive... Amergin, I know you can do better than this... take it outside or sumpin... or then again,... snap out of it!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Gareth
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 07:39 PM

I can live with "Shambles" rants. At least he is honest, and 'is heart is pure, even if a touch misguided.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 07:40 PM

It really is a good idea to think twice before naming a thread in a way that is likely to offend - isn't it, Thomas?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: wysiwyg
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 09:00 PM

Nathan,

:~(

'T'were better not.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 09:32 PM

Yes,... McGrath............... put the blush on me, y doancha?

Really though... hanging someone's name up with the hampster postings... it was just too much for me to take. Not even in the same league with lumping all GUESTS into the same coward's dustbin... I mean so?... who cares if some aspiring new folksingers are turned off forever from traditional music because of my choice of thread headings? Oops! Sorry, Oh well... couldn't be helped...

But seeing The Shambles up there with the hampsters was more than I could stand...

;^)ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 09:33 PM

I haven't run into what you all are referring to, but from the title of this one, I thought I might join in and whine about the seeming lack of creativity in BS threads, titles at least; haven't had time to look into all of them, but also haven't wanted to. Just seems to me we could find better things than another thread about not posting or posting, etc. **bg** Guess that makes me one of the old ones around here who waxes on about how it usetabe.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: harpgirl
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 09:37 PM

While you're at it give Amergin his own thread so he can dump on all the people he doesn't like in one thread....love harpgirl

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Sorcha
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 09:39 PM

Nathan, try to grow up a bit, please? Shambles, I have no prob with you or your threads. Now, when you and Joe O get into it, I might just tell you both to shut up. (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 10:28 PM

"Hampsters"?????? It's HAMSTER, fer Chrissake! Hamster. Got it?

Regarding this thread and its general subject I have something I have to say...

BLEAUGH!

Also...

P-P-P-PP-P-P-F-F-F-F-L-L-L-P-PP-TTT!!! (sound of a big raspberry)

Not that I'm criticizing you for starting it, Amergin, that's just my reaction to the whole general subject, that's all. Take it as you will.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 10:33 PM

Hampster, hampster. Got it LH. I'm with ya.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 18 Jan 04 - 11:13 PM

Righto Little! I was so worked up I could only imagine the locals in Cambden... Maybe the reggae folks are hempsters...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 06:09 AM

For the majority of people who will have no idea what this thread is all about – the following links to these threads will explain.

This one has no contribution from me but is one thread setting the example of the 'witchhunt' I refer to.
Forums Discussion Groups

This one is where a member was (wrongly) accused (by one of the volunteers) of making anonymous abusive postings.
Guest postings

The following contains the firm evidence of two censorship actions (of non-abusive posts) - being taken based only on the arbitrary personal judgements of volunteers – without the stated required consultation taking place first.
The respect for our contributions to our forum is not being given when censorship action is now being taken without the poster's knowledge or permission on a routine basis. Mistakes are apologised for (and this is welcome) but no action is then taken to ensure that the same mistake is not repeated.
Good folk are honestly defending a system (carried out by good folk) that the evidence demonstrates IS NOT the one currently in operation and one that I suggest has proved to be counter-productive and one that urgently requires a review.
GUEST a Mudcat euphemism for …?

This one contains some poetry.
On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings

This one is (mostly and so far) a sensible discussion on the wider issues.
Are we having fun as Fascists yet?

A word of warning: all of these threads contain personal abuse and strong language - although not from me. Perhaps the witch hunt is now getting a little out of control?

As Voltaire said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Although I don't think that he was ever a member here - it is a principle that I had always believed was shared by many contributors………..Perhaps it is far later than we all think?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 07:28 AM

If all that looks a little daunting and possibly a little negative - I came up with the following - back in March 2003. It could be tweaked a little or positively added to but the main idea is there. An unamed someone referred to it as the 6 ENCOURAGEMENTS

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: BS: Is the Mudcat over policed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:02 AM

To me it felt that a possibly "sensible discussion on the wider issues" was being diverted into a manifesto about narrower issues, which would better have been explored in a separate thread. However the rather gratuitously offensive title given to it by Amergin in opening it rather ruled this thread out for that purpose.

It's always slightly absurd to suggest that a thread would be better allowed to fade away, because in the process of saying that one is refreshing it once again. But I think that it would be better off dropped out of sight.

...................

Incidentally, there seems some doubt whether Voltaire actually ever said or wrote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", even though some Dictionaries of Quotations do say so. But that's the case with any number of quotations - they get coined by some relatively unknown person, and then ascribed to someone more famous, which make them more convenient to use. ("As Samuel Johnson once said" is more effective than "As Charles Higgenbotham once said", and gives more weight to an argument.)

I'd doubt if Voltaire would actually have agreed with it - except insofar as "a right to say something" means "a right not to be thrown in jail for saying it". He had no qualms about verbally bullying people he disagreed with into silence. I suspect if Voltaire had been running the Mudcat, Shambles would have had much more reason to complain.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 10:27 AM

Mudcat looks more and more like this place
every day.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 11:05 AM

see, Amergin...I told ya.

(wondering if Voltaire (or his ghost writer) had any comments on where it was appropriate to exercise your "right to say it", or how often.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 11:10 AM

GUEST -- I believe you are projecting again.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST,weerover
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 11:42 AM

If "H-A-M-P-S-T-E-R-S" is acceptable to Chambers Dictionary (which it is), the it's acceptable to me.

wr.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 11:53 AM

Hey! Can you lot stop hijacking MY thread - then it would just fade away?

*Smiles*

OK so let us assume the title of this thread is in fact: "Is Mudcat over policed?"

First off does our forum need police?

Do we in fact have any currently?

If we do and if we did and these police were there only to protect us - should we not know what rules these police operated under - to enable us to be protected from our police?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Justa Picker
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 12:01 PM

What Harpy said.
Please include me in that thread with her. :-)
I wouldn't want to miss the party.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 12:19 PM

Heads up!... HAMPSTER!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST,Ho Lee Krap!
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 02:44 PM

By gollies, that is one big rodent! Even Godzilla would step back before that one...BUT...

It is no hamster. It is a very fat groundhog. Note the lack of erect ears normally seen on a hamster.

I wonder if this fellow saw his shadow on Feb 2nd? Let's hope not, because if he did there's an ice age on the way!

Ho Lee

p.s. Just because certain ignorant people have created sites on the Internet spelling hamster as "hampster" does not mean it is correct to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 05:38 PM

Dear Ho Lee Krap, you are rite. Next, well bee speling grebulls with only one ell. Sheit.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST,si
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 05:46 PM

Wrats. I always thought grebulls only had one ell.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 06:37 PM

Look, I gave up on these threads awhile back as generally pointless but on this one I'd like to make a positive contribution by clearing up the difference between hamster and hampster.

A Hamster is a small, furry, little mouse like looking mother which you buy at the pet store. They live their lives uselessly running about in a cage or a wheel or any number of wackyass toys available at the pet shop. Notice how the pet shop keeps factoring in? This type of hamster can be purchased for less than ten bucks but in it's short lifetime will cost you $2418.OO in assorted bullshit to keep it entertained.

A Hampster is a guy who sneaks into girls' dorm rooms and whiffs the underwear in their dirty clothes hamper. These too will end up costing money as they become guests of the local and state incarceration facilities where they are as useless as the other hamster but do provide entertainment value to many of the other inmates.....ahem.........The pet shop does not factor in here.

Glad to clear this up and also find this to be an entirely appropriate thread to do so.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: harpmaker
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 07:25 PM

Justa P, harp girl US =Harpy? harpmaker UK = Harpy? Nicknames the mudcat given me/us. Now what?? (No Th/cre intd, just a point)

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 08:34 PM

Now 'spaw... quit yer knawin... tha's jes not so. Hampsters are afficianados of a certain kina dance in da UK... OK? 41,000 hits on google, ya see... 'course ah ain't no smellin' bee eithah...

Cheerio! ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 08:48 PM

A buddy and I went into the main Eaton's store near Christmas one year. He bought some underwear for his girl friend. When the sales gal asked if he wanted them gift wrapped, I said, "No thanks, we'll eat 'em here." Jesus, catspaw49, you posted the above like there was something WRONG with it. Don't get on my shit list, pal. Oh, yeah, the bicycle seats are a treat, too. HA!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:15 PM

Here it is! The Hampster dance

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: wysiwyg
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:31 PM

Harpgirl is harpy, Harpmaker is Harpy.... right?????

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:38 PM

Can we please do as customary on threads and respect the wishes or the original poster and keep these harpies and hampsters off of a thread created for me to ""piss and moan in"?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:47 PM

Well, you're doin' that, so this must be workin'.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:47 PM

Yo, Shambles, I was kiddin' around.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:50 PM

catpaws-mouses are flat and thin, and rubbish, , but hamsters are fat and good, and they put food in there face, and they clever, besause they knoew how to escape, and mouses dont, they just sit about all day, and they shit all over the place, but hamsters only shit in the corner, exept when you let them out, [then thhey shit on the floore], hamsters are betterr than mouses.john

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:53 PM

Keep it up. I like It. Mr. Shambles...much of your schlock has been a big contribution to the MC of today....

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Without your dedicated perseverance this American never would have become "knowledgable" of the plight of maligned-gypsies, buskers, license-fees, and Morris=-dancers.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:55 PM

hUllo jOhn...hUllo?

Why don't yhour chat?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 01:53 AM

There's a great scene in "Monty Python's Life of Brian" where Stan (a man) announces to his fellow members of the People's Front of Judea that he wants to be a woman, ". . . because I want to have babies."

"But you can't have babies," declares Reg, the PFJ's leader.

"Don't you oppress me!" shouts Stan, who also wants to be called Loretta.

"I'm not oppressing you, Stan -- you haven't got a womb. Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?"

………………………………………
According to a story in the London Daily Telegraph, a 34-year-old British man asked a doctor for a cervical cancer screening (also known as a "pap smear"), but the doctor refused on the grounds that men don't have a cervix. The patient lodged a complaint with the National Health Service two years ago, after the doctor refused to put him on a recall list for cervical screening.

Apparently, the Exeter Primary Care Trust, which is part of England's National Health Service, didn't know men don't have a cervix either. The PCT has summoned the doctor to a formal hearing over his refusal to perform the exam. However, in an attempt to be more patient friendly, the PCT did agree to the patient's request to be re-registered with a female name.

The PCT also issued a statement saying "Loretta" has asked for a number of "complex issues" to be reviewed concerning his care and treatment by "Doctor Reg."

"In this instance a range of issues are being considered, and the hearing is not solely about the availability of cervical screening." A spokesman for the PCT also told the Telegraph, "We have received a complaint as you described and as required, under the NHS complaints procedure, we are investigating along with other complaints from the individual."

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 02:04 AM

Even stranger than that - are there are signs that some changes here are on the way?

I kid you not - the following link is to a thread where Joe Offer is asking for the words to Time to ring some chamges

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 06:07 AM

You're a sick puppy Roger......LOL....

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Micca
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 11:51 AM

May I add a Musical(ish) if parodic note?

So Shambles spins
(Tune Sir Patrick Spens)

The Shambles sits at his keyboard
Writing a new thread whine
"Oh Who shall keep the Mudcat pure
The task must sure be mine"

Then out spoke bold Joe Offer
"Bold arbiter I be
That Shamble's a contentious git
As ever you might see"

The Shambles wrote a great great length
In threads that Numbered three
Saying "Guests that post anonymous
Are all OK to me"

"Its No-o way, its no-o-way "
so loudly he did moan
"will I be part of a witch hunt
'gainst folks who remain unknown"

The first line that Shambles wrote
No laughter laugh-ed he
"I'll not a single line here will I use
When I can two or three"

"Oh Who is this that's done this deed
And calls the clones "all right"
"We must resist the Witchfinder
Resist with all our might"

The thread it hardly had been up
A day or maybe three
When diverse Mudcatters spoke out
Both Loud and long so free

"The Shambles he is full of shit"
and many insults more
"He talks oppression of us all
He just don't know the score"

"Take heart ,take heart Mudcatters all
Make sure that we are clear
Its not for glory or for fame
But Music we are here"

Then out there spoke young Mudcatter
"I fear the 'Cat will sink
And with these personal attacks
It will begin to stink"

They had not passed 100 posts
When Giok shouted "Please
Its havering loud that yous all are
Your worse than the Wee Frees"

Thomas the Rhymer and BillD
Amos and Kevin McGrath
Were loath to leave the thread alone
Or be seen to run awa'


For if they to yield, and opt for quiet
The Mudcat soon you'd find
A place for guests and spoilers all
And a Shambles left behind

© Micca Patterson

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Catherine Jayne
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 12:13 PM

LOL Micca I love it!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 12:41 PM

oh, my! That is destined to become a classic, Micca! *great BIG grin*

that's why we humans WRITE poems and songs...to capture the essence of ourselves in succinct metaphor. (he said pompously)

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 12:44 PM

Nicely, nicely done, Pat!! LOL!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 01:03 PM

faaantastic!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 02:15 PM

Fanfuckingtastic, Miccadarlin'!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 02:39 PM

May I add a Musical(ish) if parodic note?

Not in MY thread - no.

And leave my left behind alone too.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 02:59 PM

Roger, this raises a new and mystical question: what is the sound of one behind clapping?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:09 PM

I nominate this thread to be the most boring "insider" thread currently out there.

What a yawn.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:16 PM

Roger, this raises a new and mystical question: what is the sound of one behind clapping?
A FA - Or possibly an AT?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:19 PM

Well, you certainly spiced things up there, dintcha, Not-Martin?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:19 PM

Sorry made a bit of a fart of that one.

Roger, this raises a new and mystical question: what is the sound of one behind clapping?

A FA - Or possibly an RT?

It's the way I tell 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:37 PM

"May I add a Musical(ish) if parodic note?"

"Not in MY thread - no."

I don't suppose you'd like Micca's post deleted, then?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: harpgirl
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:43 PM

...so this doesn't qualify as a thread attacking another mudcatter? Why, because Shambles views are unpopular or what?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 03:53 PM

No -- because, at a guess, he is enjoying it or at least riding the wave with a bit of humor.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 04:05 PM

And to delete this thread because it in some sense attacks Shambles would be doing just what he has stated on numerous occasions he is opposed to. And I imagine he would be bloody furious if it happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Is the Mudcat over-policed
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 04:09 PM

On the other hand, changing the thread title to the one I put on this post would be a good idea, I think anyway. (And I see that Shambles is evidently for that as well.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: harpgirl
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:24 PM

Wait a minute, Amos. How is Shambles going to ask for a deletion without being a hypocrite. My guess is he has no choice but to go along. Personally, I think the whole thread stinks. It should be deleted but hey, let's punish Shambles because he dared to speak against the tide. Who is being hypocritical here?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 05:40 PM

No -- because, at a guess, he is enjoying it or at least riding the wave with a bit of humor.

Amos - Enjoy is hardly the word for the truth is out there somewhere - but even if that were the case - the point is a good one and probably deserves a better answer that the one you provided. It is really these double standards that provide all the ammunition for the so-called trouble-making guest to exploit.

No one - including me has to open the thread so there is really never any need to delete this or any BS thread.

Kevin if I get told off for duplicate posting - will you take the 'rap'? I have posted the 5 questions here as you suggested for I see that you have alredy provided the link here from Barry Finn's thread.
...................................

The point I would make here is that there is only one punishment for any crime. And that this punishment is used increasingly and not just by Joe. Is it really proportionate that personal attack using foul language from an anonymous poster will receive exactly the same summary justice as a duplicate or an incoherent posting?

There seems to be many more than these two examples of what is not allowed and that will receive this one punishment and these would appear to be increasing. However, the questions that are not at all unreasonable to ask - must be:

1 Should the punishment fit the crime and does it currently?

2 Are all the volunteers authorised to administer summary justice and censor other's postings – without the poster's knowledge or permission – based only on their value judgement?

3 Is there to be no difference to be seen between an abusive post and say an incoherent one?

4 Is a sensible and responsible example being to set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?

5 Is it really too much to ask that those that would volunteer to judge (and punish) us – can be expected to always set the standards and be judged themselves by these standards?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 10:22 PM

1. There is no crime, and there is no punishment.
2. The editorial management they do is not a justice action. It is not censorship in the usual sense of the word. IF it is, it is the mildest possible form of censorship.
3. This question makes no sense. Of course there is a difference.
4. No. But then, I haven't seen this happen. I'd like some specifics and some context.
5. Already answered earlier -- no it is not too much to ask.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:55 AM

Amos I don't know why I am bothering to provide these examples as you have either ignored or excused them before and you probably will again - but here goes.

4 Is a sensible and responsible example being to set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?

4. No. But then, I haven't seen this happen. I'd like some specifics and some context.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest
Postings
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 01:32 PM

Actually, I didn't make any accusations. I just asked Cat if she was one of the people making anonymous posts, and if she was, could she please stop. Could all of you Brits please stop this nastiness, and be nice to each other? Mudcat is supposed to be a folk music forum, not UK Folkie Gossip Central. I've seen this backstabbing here at Mudcat from all sorts of UK people, and I saw it in person when I was in the UK last year. I met a lot of UK Mudcatters when I was in England last year, and this year at the Getaway, and I like almost every British Mudcatter I've met. You're wonderful people - why don't you like each other?

Don't you people have anything better to do with your time?

We don't go on witch hunts. We have no axe to grind. We don't allow personal attacks, so we delete them when we see them or when we get complaints about them. We would much rather spend our time on something other than settling personal squabbles and dealing with petty gossip. So, would all you children please grow up?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 05:38 PM

I hear all sorts of comments about Guest posts, but Max and Jeff and I still think we need to accommodate posts from people who don't want to register. We think it's the only way to keep this a growing, vibrant community instead of an inbred group of people drowning in their own smalltalk and inside jokes and bickering.

However, that being said, if a nasty note is posted anonymously, there's something more frightening and ominous about it. Even if it isn't intended, an anonymous message of disagreement tends to take on a leering, threatening tone. There are very few messages from registered Mudcatters that are frightening, but such is often the case with our anonymous posts.

If a person posts anonymous information about music, or makes a positive comment, almost everybody can accept that easily. Anonymity is disagreeable only when the text of the message is disagreeable - and then that anonymity tends to amplify that frightening nature of a message.

Shambles can say whatever he likes about me, and it's very unlikely that his messages will be deleted - despite all his complaints about deletions, the only Shambles messages that get deleted are the duplicate ones he posts in two or three locations. I may not like what he has to say and I may be convinced that he's an idiot and a troll - but at least he has the courage to use his own identity when he speaks, and I respect that.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 02:05 AM

Oh, grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 02:12 AM

Ebbie that probably makes this point rather well. It is time for our forum to be ALLOWED to grow-up.

As for indulging in - encouraging or just tolerating 'witch hunts, we don't have to look too far. The danger in this toleration of witch hunting by Joe and Co of anyone who has any criticsm of Joe and Co is that the witch hunt will over time develop a momentum of its own.

Forums Discussion Groups

We don't know who is part of Joe and Co - with to power to CENSOR our contributions so there could well be many more who are not setting an example and following the highest standards - who in fact are following a double standard, which others are supporting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: mooman
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 04:18 AM

Dear Shambles,

With regard to your example 4 below, that incident concerned a particularly nasty and personal set of attacks made anonymously (probably by (a) UK person(s)) on a well-respected and liked Mudcatter of long standing. If I had been Joe, I would have deleted the posts too, done some research and posted a similar message.

Personally, I think the balance is about right and of the 2000+ posts I've made under this or my previous moniker, to my knowledge none have been deleted. But there again...I don't go round making personal attacks under my Mudcat name or as a "Guest".

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 06:33 AM

1 Should the punishment fit the crime and does it currently?
I can't see anything here I'd call "a punishment".

2 Are all the volunteers authorised to administer summary justice and censor other's postings – without the poster's knowledge or permission – based only on their value judgement?
That seems a reasonable way of doing it to me - if someone with this role makes too many mistakes or is acting maliciously, they should cease to be allowed to carry on. "Summary justice" is a hyped up expression in this context. This isn't a spaghetti western.

3 Is there to be no difference to be seen between an abusive post and say an incoherent one?
Where people abusive posts it is appropriate to try to discourage them from doing so; people who make incoherent posts may benefit from being helped to avoid doing so on occasion. In both cases it might sometimes be appropriate for the posts to be removed,

4 Is a sensible and responsible example being set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?
Courtesy is always appropriate. So is plain speaking. (And if you think that those PMs from Joe are "abusive"...)

5 Is it really too much to ask that those that would volunteer to judge (and punish) us – can be expected to always set the standards and be judged themselves by these standards?
Not too much to ask, and my experience is that that is precisely what we get.

Basically there are two ways of running things in any community - family, village, nation – one is having a system of laws and tribunals and all that; and is the other involves trusting people to do the right thing. The latter way can break down, and isn't always possible, but where it's possible to do it the second way, and have things work reasonably satisfactorily, that's the system I prefer. That's a personal preference, and I think that in the Mudcat it works pretty well. It's organisationally untidy, but I can stand a fair amount of that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Mr Happy
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:26 AM

Amos: Q. 'what is the sound of one behind clapping?'

A. John Cage's 4'33" ?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 08:35 AM

With regard to your example 4 below, that incident concerned a particularly nasty and personal set of attacks made anonymously (probably by (a) UK person(s)) on a well-respected and liked Mudcatter of long standing. If I had been Joe, I would have deleted the posts too, done some research and posted a similar message.

With respect - the point was simply that Amos asked to see evidence of 4. Is a sensible and responsible example being to set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?

4. No. But then, I haven't seen this happen. I'd like some specifics and some context.

This is what Joe had to say (about me) in the Guest Postings thread - I may not like what he has to say and I may be convinced that he's an idiot and a troll - The context of this thread was that a UK poster was making the point that they had been wrongly accused by Joe
in a PM of making anonymous attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 08:46 AM

Joe was out of line to imply you were an idiot. You are not an idiot.

But you are misinterpreting the nature and magnitude of these things; and if the examples you gave above are the worst this community has to live through, then we ai'nt doing half bad.

As for you being a troll, well, that could be argued, as it asometimes appears that you will trot the same complaints out as long as anyone will react to them, not out of interest in discussion.

Both of these are opinions only. I have been called much worse by people on this forum, and you know, somehow I just survived!

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 09:42 AM

Amos I don't know why I am bothering to provide these examples as you have either ignored or excused them before and you probably will again -

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 10:11 AM

Excuse me, Sham, but that is not what I did. Are you so stuck in argumentive mode that when someone says you're right about something you can't hear it?

I did give you a less generous opinion on a couple of other points, but it IS my opinion. Should I give you some other opinion? I don't think so. Don't like mine? Understandable -- apply elsewhere.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:21 AM

R 4 Is a sensible and responsible example being set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?

A 4. No. But then, I haven't seen this happen. I'd like some specifics and some context.

Amos - You say no and I supplied the evidence that you ask for - So you have now finally accepted Joe did call another poster names and should not have...That alone is enough to destroy the 'snow job' you have up to now been trying to maintain.

But having finally accepted and agreed that I am right to question if a sensible and resonable example is being set and on the evidence supplied - finally agreed with me and accepted that it is NOT being set - you then go on to give an opinion and qualify whether the name was apt or serious - what has that got to do with the question? From that I am not too sure if many folk would have thought you and had reached agreement on anything.

As you know the issue is not the name but who is taking part and setting the example of name-calling and encouraging others that this behavior is OK. So now we are finally in agreement on something how do WE address this and what do you intend to do about it?

It would look as if you just intend to carry on with your 'snow job' and to claim that I am the agumentitive one. When a claim is made you tend to claim it is wide and speculative - when the firm evidence is provided to support that claim and you eventually accept it as a fact - you then go on to excuse and qualify it.........As I predicted you would.

I would like to have a sensible debate - based on the evidence - I have no intention of challenging your entitlement to opinions even though they may be attempting to cover-up the facts that you have finally agreed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:29 AM

Roger, I did a search on your posts back to the beginning in 1998. You have been setting yourself up on the cross since very early on. Same old game, create a false issue, get people to debate it, then set yourself up in your own mind as the long suffering voice of reason. Time to get a new game, old boy. You only look like a pathetic case when you continue to flog the equine corpse.

You have made a couple of points over the years that had merit. For what it is worth, these threads have caused me to give a great deal of thought to my activities as a Clone. But a broken clock is right twice a day. You have now taken the shred of truth and sufficiently diluted it with your pathological need to be heard so as to take away whatever good effect you may have had. Give it a rest, Roger.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 11:54 AM

Amos - You say no and I supplied the evidence that you ask for - So you have now finally accepted Joe did call another poster names and should not have...That alone is enough to destroy the 'snow job' you have up to now been trying to maintain.


Roger,

You're just bloody unbelievable, ya know? I don't go to the trouble of trying to maintain a courteous discussion with you in order to have you insult me, you parboiled witherspoon! Let me point out that you have just demonstrated the mechanism of your own endless self-induced victimization: lure them in to a dialogue and then slice 'em up. Then wonder why you somehow end up out of people to talk to... Well, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. We're done now. I am not investing energy into a dialogue which is intended from the start to be some kind of covert, manipulative mellerdrammer. How's that for a snow job, then?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Justa Picker
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:12 PM

So sad and so laughable that apparently no one sees the bigger picture.

(a) It's an internet forum. Period. People that rely on this place as their sole connection with the real world, need to seek professional help for their obvious psychoseez, NOW!

(b) In the end none of our opinions matter a rats ass, about how and what we'd like the forum to be. All suggestions and attempts to manipulate change in how WE want the forum to be, are totally irrelevant. Get over it now, and stop repeating these types of threads; threads that attack guests; threads where guests attack members, etc.etc. that are repeated and rehashed every few months.

With a flick of his magic wand (if he so chooses) this place could be focussed and moderated. Make no mistake, the way it is, IS QUITE DELIBERATE. Again get over it, accept it, or leave. You will NOT change anything with your rants.

(c) Joe Offer (unfortunately because of the puppet master) acts like a boxer in a ring, forced to fight with his legs in shackles, and one arm tied behind his back. This is also for the amusement of the puppet master and quite deliberate. Accept no other excuses.

(d) The puppet master is definitely having the last laugh on all of you. He enjoys the anarchy, especially the anarchy created by allowing non-members to post and ALL the ensuing threads complaining of such which continously recylce like a sewage plant processing water. AGAIN - Get over it now. IT'S ALL VERY INTENTIONAL AND PART OF AMUSING THE PUPPET MASTER.

This is the only internet forum I know of that allows non members to post. And it for that reason (and the anarchy this creates) that this place was never able to attract serious funding from commercial sources; and in attracting AND KEEPING new, serious musical contributors. (I have tried to interest at least half a dozen serious contributors who's musical knowledge rivals those of such respected members as Dale Rose, M. Ted, Gargoyle (yes Gargoyle!) and a few others here. They took a look around and said "no thanks.")

The fact that " A MAGAZINE DEDICATED TO FOLK AND BLUES MUSIC" is no longer part of the Mudcat logo, should cure all detractors of their whining about wanting to make this place more focussed. Get over it and get a life. Again, INTENTIONAL AND DELIBERATE.

THIS IS ONE BIG AQUARIUM TO ITS OWNER - nothing more.
Perhaps it was once upon a time, until power corrupted absolutely.

(e) The Puppet Master has absolutely no class. He does not personally acknowledge nor thank individual financial contributors on a personal level. Therefore since he had a manners-bypass somewhere along the way, why should anyone contribute a dime to this gold fish bowl?
This is has got to be the largest dysfunctional "family" I've ever seen in my life. Sad that there's no one willing to step up to the plate and cure it. Again, intentional and deliberate.

(f) Shambles has contributed a helluva lot more musically to this place than the member-troll who began this thread. For someone who works in tech-support he sure is useless at sharing detailed information here, about various tech problems that occur to members (but real good about whining about his love life and his depression.) Fortunately though we have John in Kansas. Anyone thanked you lately John? I THANK YOU!

(g) If this place was moderated, and membership was required to post along with posted IP addresses accompanying each post, you would not have to engage supposition to figure out who's who behind "guest" postings whether civil and maligned. I don't buy any of the arguments in favour of GUESTS being allowed to post. It's complete and utter bullshit. There are good cookies and bad cookies.

(h) Think very carefully and plan what you would do, if this place went down permanently tomorrow...because it will at some point, when the hassles outweight the amusement, for the puppet master.

Those of you with severe internet psychosis should start planning where you'll get your forum fix, as well as your identity and online sense of belonging and importance.

RANT OFF.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:34 PM

JEeze, JP!! AN AQUARIUM??? You mean...we're all...just FISH??? Oh, my GAWD!! I'm a FISHHHHH???? I can't believe this!! Why didn't somebody TELL ME????


ROTFLMAO


A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Justa Picker
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:42 PM

Yes Amos. :-)
Just think back to the beginning of Python's "Meaning of Life", at the beginning of the film with all the fish saying 'mornin'n to each other.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 01:44 PM

Anyone with a conscience, true or not, is aware of the validity of SOME of these contentions. However, I think you go a tad over the top, JP. "Puppet master"? You have read more Machiavelli than is good for you. You know what they say about a little knowledge.

IMO

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 02:09 PM

You're just bloody unbelievable, ya know? I don't go to the trouble of trying to maintain a courteous discussion with you in order to have you insult me, you parboiled witherspoon!

*Smiles*

Amos - In your so-called courteous discussion with me, in the post you refer to - you did rather nicely say you don't consider me to be an idiot but you then go on to justify me fitting the description of a troll.

I have found you to be an intelligent man but your determination to make me labour points that are perfectly obvious - and at the same time blame me for extending and hijacking threads where you have made as many contributions as I - is rather testing the immpression I have gained of you.

I am not going to be provoked into of calling you names in return. One reason is that if I were to that - I fear that I would not be immune from charges of calling other 'catters' names and there would be many calls to close or edit this thread.

Your bluster is one way of getting out of the fact that you have finally accepted at least one of my major points. And that you may hope that this indignant reation will enable you to avoid answering my question about what you proposed to do - if anything - about Joe and Co's bad example of calling the poster's names. Except of course to follow it this bad example........

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 06:51 PM

4 Is a sensible and responsible example being set when our volunteer police force also indulge in making abusive posts themselves and start calling other posters names?

Courtesy is always appropriate. So is plain speaking. (And if you think that those PMs from Joe are "abusive"...)

The nature of PMs of course are not for public display, I will continue to respect that convention.

The two examples posted were not of course PMs from Joe - they were posted publicly in the Guest Posting thread. The claim was not that they were abusive or the extent of that abuse - they were evidence of those who would volunteer to judge us setting the example of name-calling those whose views they did not agree with or understand.

Did Joe publicly write that he considered me to be an idiot and a troll?
Is this name-calling setting a sensible and responsible example and do you consider this then to be "courtesy"?

As you know I have been called a lot worse things and don't really care what names I am called. However, if the big no-no is claimed to be censoring abusive postings and the name-calling of fellow 'catters' - to prevent some posters from being offended - Is it not reasonble to expect those who volunteer to judge us to set better standards than they currently do? And for them to be judged by those same standards - if not even higher ones and certainly not to been seen to be setting double standards?

Should they not ensure that ALL members are not encouraged and are not encouraging others to indulge in this scapegoating - where certain individuals with certain views - appear to be considered as 'fair-game' and where the normal conventions do not appear to apply?

Kevin you well know the points I am being forced to labour - I would be grateful if you did not make me labour them yet again. Perhaps you and others can help in addressing them?

Somewhere between the extremes of the 'snow job' perfect fairyland of Amos and the 'puppetmaster' nightmare of Justapicker - lies the true situation. Good folk trying to do their best. It does not help them or us to praise them uncritically or to slag them off whatever they try do.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:16 PM

It's not that I don't understand what you are saying, Roger, it's that I don't agree with you, so there's no need to feel "forced to labour".

I just feel glad the Mudcat is here, and I'm pretty happy with how it works, and grateful to the people who put time and effort into into helping it work. If from time to time they make the odd mistake, who doesn't?

The examples you give, Shambles, of what you are complaining about just don't add up, in my judgement, to very much that is worth complaining about. There's a difference between suggestions for change and improvement, and this kind of thing.

The insults you identify don't seem too serious. "Troll." "Idiot." I've had far worse from other posters. Agreed, that's a different matter from getting them in a semi-official capacity. But when we get under people's skin we can't be surprised if they scratch, and as scratches go, those seem, to me, pretty mild.

(And justa picker - you're a great musician, but...)

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:42 PM

Shambles, I can agree that Joe Offer might have bitten his tongure rather than go public with his opinion of you. And remember, it is ONLY his opinion an opinions are malleable; I have little doubt that he would be happy to change it if given reason. If it would make you feel better, why not PM Joe and ask for a public apology?

I too am just glad to have this forum- I don't require Max or Joe O or the joeclones to be super-human. Thank goodness that they behave better than some of us do when we get carried away!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:45 PM

Joe and I got into it, in an very ugly way a few years ago, right here in front of gawd and everyone. We got over it. He is, after all, human like the rest of us. Suprise, surprise!

So when do I get my Joe Clone Policeperson's Badge and who wants to get interrogated first? In the Temple of the Golden Globes, of course; then it'll be off to the NYCFTTS! No doughnuts, though, the aliens ate them all!

kat

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 07:48 PM

Actually, Roger, I think I am compelled to withdraw my confession. If I had known how inappropriate, misguided and insensitive your criticisms were going to be, I would probably have secretly ended up considering you an idiot, too! But, in general, I'd have been too polite to say so. You, on the other hand, seem top have no such compunction.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 09:29 PM

For what it's worth...

I think Joe Offer is doing a great job, I'm astounded by the patience and care that McGrath and Amos are taking in their responses to Shambles... I enjoyed justa's dark vision... micca is a brilliant shining star...

But Ohmygoodness Shambles... what a load of self indulgent crap! If you get some understanding, you seem to either laugh it off, or ignore it... That horse is so dead I'm starting to think you are simply playing it... having mistaken it perhaps, for a well tuned drum...

IMHO, it's your "Golden Vanity"...

All the best, and could you simmer down a bit please? ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:13 AM

justapicker...your 3rd incarnation here is beginning to resemble your 1st..

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 02:12 AM

If you get some understanding, you seem to either laugh it off, or ignore it...

Some evidence of that would be welcome.

But is it is not rather pointless to qualify - yes well it did happen - it shouldn't or that it was not too serious or whatever - when you have been maintaining that such things are not so and asking to see the evidence? If we can ALL finally accept that there is a problem and not just to the individual who has their contributions deleted - we can try to ensure that it does not happen again.

I have not stated that folk are conspiring together to create a fascist regime. However I do think that I have provided much evidence to prove that it is a cock-up and that there is no real common thought about what this censorship action is supposed to acheive or when how and who does this or indeed where. For example should the BS not be free from this intervention?

All this has allowed a double standard to creep in and where it is accepted by many that mistakes are being made - my main point is that these mistakes are simply being allowed to be repeated and the lessons are not being learned from them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: mooman
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 09:23 AM

Dear Justapicka,

Knowing Max's policy and views on this matter I must respectfully disagree with your "puppermaster" post. Max owns this site and is probably one of the most tolerant people on it. For the record, I think Joe and the other Clones do a sterling job and, as far as I can see, try to confine deletions to nasty personal attacks rather than courteous (and quite normal) differences of opinion (guests included).

Just my humble opinion of course.

Peace

moo (not a "clone" or so-called "insider")

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST,weerover
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 09:51 AM

Having skimmed through most of the foregoing messages, I can't help but think that some people have got way too much time on their hands.

wr

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:03 PM

I think Joe and the other Clones do a sterling job and, as far as I can see, try to confine deletions to nasty personal attacks rather than courteous (and quite normal) differences of opinion (guests included).

It's not that I don't understand what you are saying, Roger, it's that I don't agree with you, so there's no need to feel "forced to labour".

If the video evidence of Rodney King is shown on TV being kicked and punched - is that not evidence that (at least some) LA's finest are not doing a good job or setting a good example? Remember also that they have clear and understood rules to work to and to protect us.

Is it really sensible - having seen it - to deny that evidence - to go on to still express a personal opinion that that are doing a good job? What value can that opinion hold - if it is held despite the evidence? Is it not a bit unwise to start to qualify the extent of the poor man's abuse by saying things like 'it was not too bad', 'they were not kicking him too hard' or 'they did not actually kill him' - or even that he was enjoying it??????????????

This is what I mean by being forced to labour things. Not opinions for you to agree with or not - but solid rock-bottom evidence that demonstrate what folk defend - is not in fact what is happening............

If someone has a bruise - it is not going to go away just because you express an opinion that it is not there. You may have an opinion that the bruise was not hurting as much as the person said it did - but they are to one feeling the pain and should know. Would it not be more sensible to make some real effort to try and ensure that this person did not receive any more bruises?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: mooman
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:13 PM

Sorry...but you've lost me now Shambles with the analogy you give!

All the best

moo

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:28 PM

You guys are really VERY dull. I'll go elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:40 PM

Sorry Mooman - I will just refer you to the evidence.

The Memorial Thread

The above is an example of a volunteer taking editing action without the correct reporting procedure. According to Joe – they are/were supposed to contact him first. Without the poster's knowledge or permission some selected (non abusive) posts were taken from this thread on the main forum where the thread was posted and place in a new thread. This was done only one the personal value judgement of the volunteer concern and Joe later stated – that he did not agree with the action – but it was too late to change. I think Kevin expressed an opinion in this thread that he also considered this to be wrong?

Now mistakes happen but the lessons were not learned and a short while later persons unknown closed the following thread – for reasons unknown Guest Postings. I received a PM from Joe again stating that he did not agree with the action and that there had again been confusion and yet another break-down of the reporting procedure. This time the thread was re-opened.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:55 PM

The Memorial thread link you referred us to, Shambles, does not serve your agenda well. It very clearly shows a thinking Joe Offer trying to establish and maintain coherent ground rules with the help of others' input; it does not come close to showing an arbitrary authoritarian.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:59 PM

Shambles...you are totally confusing and misusing the concepts of 'proof' and 'evidence'. Videos of R. King proves he was hit...it does not prove what was said or what his or the officers state of mind was..etc...and thus it will always be open to interpretation whether it was 'excessive' use of force....as will 'exactly' what happened in JFK's assassination, no matter how many ballistics tests are conducted or how many feet of film analyzed.

As far as Mudcat goes, you seem to be claiming that the very fact that some posts have been deleted 'proves' that the act of deletion is obviously indefensible! You cannot seem to even comprehend that anyone could disagree: " If we can ALL finally accept that there is a problem..."...... we do NOT all 'accept' OR agree..in fact, most of the comments clearly DISagree with you, above & beyond the fact that Max is ok with *his* system running as it is.

You 'seem' to have switched from blanket condemnation of editing and/or deleting posts to claiming that the BS section should be exempt. Nowhere was it ever decided that the BS area was fair game for any sort of spam, stalking, hate messages, personal insults and inhoherent babbling! The BS section was merely to allow 'reasonable' off topic discussion to be avoided by those who wanted the basic music & technical discussions to be less cluttered. The BS area allows a LOT of latitude in plain silliness, political discussions, religious debate and even THIS interminable meta-debate of the rules of debate!

You need to get used to the idea--you have proved nothing about whether some 'censorship' here is right or wrong...IT IS A MATTER OF OPINION!!..just like discussions of God or whether G. Bush and T. Blair are assholes or not, or whether aliens exist (those are 'obvious' to some!)...

Not only is it not a matter of a vote, since Max gets the only real vote, but if it WERE a matter of a vote, you are out-voted! Even J0hn from Hull didn't want his deleted posts to be defended!

The only vote you get is the same one you get with the TV 'off' button. Please...talk about other things or push that button!

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 12:59 PM

That is a matter of opinion - I posted it to demonstrate a fact that the same mistakes are just repeated.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 01:02 PM

I think Kevin expressed an opinion in this thread that he also considered this to be wrong Sure I said I thought it was a mistake.I also said that it wasn't a mistake tat was too important.

A sense of proportion in these things is needed. And, as your use of an attempted analogy about Rodney King getting beaten to a pulp perhaps implies, that is what seems to be lacking.
......

Here are some musical hamsters from Essex.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 01:04 PM

Folks, you may all do as you choose. It is my opinion that responding to Roger only feeds what he is after here. If you want to act in an "enabling" fashion, then by all means go on and continue the dialogue on the same old load of shite. If you are tired of this, then simply quit responding.

Roger, please note that no one has shut down your thread, even though it is possible to do so. Please...........ramble on as long as you feel like doing so. I hope it is to an empty room.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 01:46 PM

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 02:18 PM

I think Kevin expressed an opinion in this thread that he also considered this to be wrong.

Sure I said I thought it was a mistake.I also said that it wasn't a mistake tat was too important.

Kevin - from the evidence of the post I referred to - I formed the opinion that you were not in agreement to the editing action taken on the personal judgement of the individual involved - that certain posts were political - I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression and did not notice your qualification.

Subject: RE: Memorial Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14-Nov-03 - 12:38 PM

The post Gareth objected to there was a response to an earlier thread which politicised the thread just as much, but in a different direction.

I sympathise with the idea of having a memorial thread that avoids avoids the politics but its a difficuot line tom thread. Any post that goes beyond paying respect, and starts expressing solidarity with the cause they were fighting for is making a political statement. Sometimes it's easier to recognise the political statements we disagree with than the ones we agree with.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 09:10 PM

Roger:
The quote of Joe's that you use to justify your claims appears to be a "One off" and certainly fails to say what you seem to believe it says.

Shambles can say whatever he likes about me, and it's very unlikely that his messages will be deleted - despite all his complaints about deletions, the only Shambles messages that get deleted are the duplicate ones he posts in two or three locations. I may not like what he has to say and I may be convinced that he's an idiot and a troll - but at least he has the courage to use his own identity when he speaks, and I respect that.

So Joe has said (a) "I may be convinced that he's an idiot and a troll". Had Joe said (b)"I am convinced Shambles is an idiot" that would have been a little more serious. Had he said (c) "Shambles is an idiot" that would have been stronger still.
However, what he has said is that he "may be convinced". Are you really trying to do all that you can to convince him?

Statement (a)suggests an openness to persuasion
Statement (b)states a personal opinion
Statement (c)could be considered offensive

Nigel (not a protector of the 'Witchfinder' as I don't believe he needs it)

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 10:05 PM

Anybody who wants to be a Witchfinder should be taking notes on Roger's tactics, anyway. Other skills include namecalling and not minding his own business. I think he's projecting. Joe doesn't have the monomania, the need to 'get' somebody and the lack of respect for others (including believing they're sheep who need examples to follow) that are required to be a decent Witchfinder General. He really sucks at... shall we call it 'embellishing the truth'? (Sorry, Joe.) Roger's out to get Joe, plain and simple.

Would anyone like to guess how long Roger and Co have kept this going round in circles? The first thread I remember was the "Minding Your Own Business" one in the Help forum. It was started on 7 March 2003. There may have been something earlier - I'm not sure. I have no clue how y'all can enjoy the same argument for that long. It boggles the mind.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 10:09 PM

It goes back a good deal futhah than thet, Jeri. When I first come onboard the 'Cat it was going on then.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 10:25 PM

SHambels-wHy donty you just shut up, and stop picking on JOe, and go and play some music?
[this is music site, not moaning site.john

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Cluin
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 11:37 PM

That'll do, donkey.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Big Mick
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 12:44 AM

Jeri, I did a search on all his posts. He has been pulling this same old shit since 1999. And if you check the Euro Folk.net, he does the same thing there, except that Dick Gaughan is his target. As I said, we simply feed his psychosis when we debate with him.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 12:49 AM

hello, mick-i think mr shambles is a mad person, and he probably tok too many drugs in the 60's, and they all messed his head up,
i know somebody like that, he's called Mad Pete, he did loads of drugs in the sixties, and he thinks every body is looking at him, and talking about him, and picking on him etc, but they arent, hes just mad.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 02:28 AM

The Memorial thread link you referred us to, Shambles, does not serve your agenda well. It very clearly shows a thinking Joe Offer trying to establish and maintain coherent ground rules with the help of others' input; it does not come close to showing an arbitrary authoritarian.

That is a matter of opinion - I posted it to demonstrate a fact that the same mistakes are just repeated.

Why was the Guest Posting thread closed? Who did it and why did they not use the so-called correct procedure when exactly this same mistake was made earlier over The Memorial thread?

The claim Joe and Co are doing a good job is well-supported.
That Joe and Co intend to a good job is also accepted by me.
These are opinions - largely based on the fact that they are fine well-intentioned folk - which I also accept.

The real questions are:

What exactly is that job?
How can the effectiveness be evaluated?
How can you decide when censorship goes over the line - when then is no line?
Is it really helpful to anyone that those who would volunteer to censor our contributions to our forum - are shown to be receiving uncritical support - based on the belief that they are doing a good (if undefined) job - rather than any evidence of a focused and organised system.

The old chestnut about name-calling abusive postings is a nonsense when the volunteers themselves are PROVED to indulge in the same thing and create the example of a double standard and actually encourage this name-calling agaist selected targets - for example - Forums Discussion Groups If that is the purpose of this policing - can it be proved to have succeeded?

My 'agenda' supported by the evidence that I will continue to supply and much evidence that I will not be aware of and that others may be - is that this system is not working as it is claimed and defended by many and that it is a cock-up - badly in need of an objective review - not that evil folk are conspiring together.

If folk wish to supply evidence that proves that the current system of censorship - on the grounds of an individual volunteer's personal taste - is successful in causing anything other than yet nore division, bad feeling and threats - then please produce this evidence in support of your opinion that Joe and Co ARE in fact doing a good job.

This system was set-up in response to some ill-defined outside threat to - take over The Mudcat. It responds to even the mildest criticsm as if this were this attempt. It is just time to stop and examine what exactly the function of the volunteers should be and how this can be tightened - up to protect contributors from them.

Is this system so perfect that it cannot be improved? Even its most vocal supporters accept that mistakes are being made - but seem to accept these - as long as they affect someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 02:49 AM

Evidence that Joe & Jeff & Co. are doing a good job:

1. Max hasn't fired us
2. Shambles is still complaining about us
3. Most other people seem to have few complaints
4. Max hasn't fired us

Need I say more?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 02:53 AM

shambles-why donyt yoo just shut uip?
you moan too much,
ok if your thresd gets detekewd, son wht!
you are lucky, you got warm house, food to eat, and i guess yoiu got a decent job, [you can afford internet etc],
plenty peoplr dont have this=
did you reelise that 1/3rd of the worlds population don't know where theree next meal is comoing from?
and loads of proplke in jail for there political/religous beliefs?
and you bloody moaning because joe deleted one of yoyr threads!
just grow up, and put it in perspecitive!
its just a website!
if your thread gets deleted it DOESENT MATTER!

you wont anser me, but never mind, just think anout it!

you soundiong like a little kid, "its not fair, joe is picking on me etc"!

I dont like little kids, my cousin got one, sjhe says "john , look after my little daughter, while i go bingo"

I said "bloody no chance, your kid, you look after it, litle kids moan too much, "i want ice cream, i want postman pat video, i want sweets etc etc"

"i want, never gets, piss off litle kid"

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 06:04 AM

Need I say more?
-Joe Offer-

Yes please Joe - this will do for a start.

Why was the Guest Posting thread closed? Who did it and why did they not use the so-called correct procedure when exactly this same mistake was made earlier over The Memorial thread?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 06:18 AM

Sorry to muddy the waters with facts, but I've just posted to Guest Postings It does not appear to be closed at all.

Possibly Roger misread the post above mine in that thread

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Catherine Jayne
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 06:21 AM

I, and a number of other people requested that the thread was closed. Shambles, you took over the thread in what seemed as a personal vendetta (and before you criticise my spelling I know already know its bad) The original matter in the thread has been delt with and everyone, apart from yourself of course, is happy with it. Life is too short for all your complaining, you really need to get out more, play more music and relax.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 07:46 AM

Perhaps a hobby.....a torrid affair... a new pet...

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 10:13 AM

I am trying hard to focus on the important issue of censorship on our forum and to avoid reacting to the reaction. For it matters little if the questions that I am asking are coming from and eight-armed Woggle from the planet Plod intent on invading the Earth and high on the best 'Old Toby'. It is what is being said that is important - not who may be saying it. If it is being said in a moderate manner - I feel that this should be respected and responses should also be made in this manner.

Sorry to muddy the waters with facts, but I've just posted to Guest Postings It does not appear to be closed at all.

Nigel - I hope you are not now trying to get us to believe that the Guest Postings thread was never closed - for I do beleive it was you who earlier posted to inform me that it had been re-opened?

I, and a number of other people requested that the thread was closed. Shambles, you took over the thread in what seemed as a personal vendetta (and before you criticise my spelling I know already know its bad) The original matter in the thread has been delt with and everyone, apart from yourself of course, is happy with it. Life is too short for all your complaining, you really need to get out more, play more music and relax.

In that thread I also expressed a wish that the thread NOT be closed as there was no good reason to do so. As has been pointed out - this is not a democracy - we do not have a vote - so every voice is worth no more or no less than everyone else's. As for the convention of respecting the original poster's intention - I feel that many people were doing just that - for as I have pointed out before and you fail to mention here - the original posting also asked for suggestions on how things could be improved. Closing the thread would deny any future posters the chance to make these suggestions.

You may well now be happy that Joe having wrongly accused you of posting abusive anonymous messages - will not do this again to you. I am just trying to do what I can - to ensure that such things do not happen again to anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 06:16 AM

For the sake of completeness.

Shambles, can you help?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 08:09 AM

"It is what is being said that is important - not who may be saying it." --The Shambles, 23 Jan 04 - 10:13 AM

Hear hear, The Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jan 04 - 03:51 PM

"I am trying hard to focus on the important issue of censorship on our forum"

Focusing might be better achieved, Riger, if you did this within a thread (or a series of threads) actually dedicated to the discussion of this issue, rather than broadcsting your comments, fairly randomly, in threads about other stuff.

And maybe you could supplement that by sticking a link to the censorshop discussion thread in a post in those other threads, when that seemed relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Jan 04 - 08:46 AM

Focusing might be better achieved, Riger, if you did this within a thread (or a series of threads) actually dedicated to the discussion of this issue, rather than broadcsting your comments, fairly randomly, in threads about other stuff.

And maybe you could supplement that by sticking a link to the censorshop discussion thread in a post in those other threads, when that seemed relevant.

It may also be helped if you could address it rather than commenting on how and where I post my views - which is rather a matter for me. You also know full well that these are not posted randomly.

For Kevin - I have tried to take your advice - perhaps you have forgotten? There are links to this thread as this thread was up and running and seemed to be better than starting yet another one - which others would have considered to be the wrong thing. You have already posted here to suggest a new title for this thread so I feel that I have done all that you have asked. Perhaps you could now just post to address the issue rather than 'hijacking' this one for you own agenda? *smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Is the Mudcat overpoliced?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 04 - 12:20 PM

I have commented on the actual issues, saying that I disagree with the significance you place on what I regard as relatively minor incidents, that I am satisfied with the way Joe and the others carry out the tasks which they have volunteered to do, and that my answer to the question posed in the modified thread heading above is "No".

Commenting on "where" and "how" opinions are posted is as much a matter for other people as commenting on the opinions themselves. In certain circumstances we have the right to say "I wish you would shut up," ("where"), and also the right to comment on the manner of someone's discourse ("how").

That is a reasonable exercise of free speech, and it does not interfere with the reasonable exercise of right of free speech by the other person.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Jan 04 - 03:18 PM

I have commented on the actual issues, saying that I disagree with the significance you place on what I regard as relatively minor incidents, that I am satisfied with the way Joe and the others carry out the tasks which they have volunteered to do, and that my answer to the question posed in the modified thread heading above is "No".

The problem when you should dare to claim that Joe and Co are not operating as they claim they are doing is that you are asked to provide evidence - and when you do provide that evidence is is dismissed as minor.

Bill D in one of his posts claimed that allowing just one abusive post was one too many. The evidence I have provided is just what I have come across - I am sure there is much more but it is enough to demonstrate and support my claim.

The question is not really if our forum is over-policed but if it needs to be policed at all. Or how can you prevent our forum from becoming over-policed? I would suggest that uncritical praise and support - in the face of the evidence provided and minimising this evidence - is not the way this is done.

The signifigance of the evidence provided is that it IS evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jan 04 - 03:30 PM

Shambles:

No. We're done, as I mentioned earlier. I have withdrawn my agreement with you concerning Joe's statement that he might possibly harbor the opinion that you were an idiot. Your version of debate is time-consuming, counter-productive and personally painful because of the passive-aggressive style of it. So I am not engaging in that sort of reaction, and I seriously hope that others will not either, because it is not debate in the usual sense. IF you think I am idiot enough to stand still for that sort of underhanded abrasion, you have another think due, chum.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Jan 04 - 08:35 PM

"...that evidence is is dismissed as minor..."

Precisely so.

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 01:54 AM

"...that evidence is is dismissed as minor..."

Precisely so

Perhaps it would not seem quite so minor if you were the one being accused by our volunteers of making abusive anonymous postings.

Or were having your posts censored or threads closed - for no good reason and without the correct so-called reporting system being followed.

What evidence would YOU require to demontstate that the present 'system' is a free-for-all and a cock-up?

What evidence can you provide to ensure us that we are safe from an increase in the current unnaccountable judgement and censorship of our postings to our forum by a select few? Or perhaps would you wish to join this judgemental few?

Subject: RE: BS: The Shambles Whine About Mudcat Thread
From: GUEST,TTCM
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 04:36 PM

Yes, Justapicker, you're definately a hypocrite.