BS: Censorship on Mudcat

Subject: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 05:27 PM

PLEASE leave the censorship on the "Cat" to the people who try hard to get it right...and stop criticising them....Some of you are here just to cause trouble of one sort or another...O.K but leave the censors to do what they do best....and they do it better than you would O.K??????? Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 05:30 PM

Oh Mike that's like a red rag to a bull for some of our well balanced contributors. You can tell they're well balanced, they have a chip on both shoulders. :~)
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 05:32 PM

ROFLOL...what on earth was my intention John?
Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 06:25 PM

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77737&messages=82

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77678&messages=39

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77622&messages=34

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 06:32 PM

tsk, georgiansilver...now you've set him off again...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 06:44 PM

Do you know? I think I have but I stand by my beliefs and suggest that the censorship on the "Cat" is about what it should be....and I don't care what anyone says to the contrary...You are doing a great job lads....and I don't see myself as a thread creep or anything like.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 30 Jan 05 - 11:04 PM

The MC,,,, is free enterprize,,,, at its best.

IF... you believe you.... can do Max - one better - go to it and best wishes with the project.

For myself - this is the most libertarian playfield imagainable - all of my censorings have fallen outside the MC's and the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of acceptable community morals.

Go off and make your own playground - I like the sand in my diapers here - just fine.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 12:32 AM

Well, we have played cat-and-mouse at times, haven't we, Garg?
But thanks for the compliment, Mike. We try to keep a balance and do our best not to be heavy-handed.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 01:29 AM

If there was any serious censorship here, do you think this thread would continue to exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 02:42 AM

Yeah, the trouble is, I like most of the people I censor...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:12 AM

Perhaps it is a case of not liking people as much as liking to censor them?

Actually being in favour of any form of censorship is a rather strange concept. The generaly feeling (outside of this forum) is that imposed censorship action may sometimes be thought necessary - but not ever thought welcome.

For people generally supporting what they think is an acceptable level of censorship mainly the censoring of everybody else and not them) do not seem to recognise the fact that once imposed - the level of censorship only ever increases.

When the greatest supporters of censorship - are those who are priviliged to impose it - you may question if they have any real will to actually solve the problem. For if the problem is solved - there will be no need to have anyone to censor and they will not be in a 'job' that they obviously like.

I don't see imposed censorship as a solution - but as creating another problem - is not the same as not being concerned about the actual problem. Although that is the 'spin' that supporters of censorship here will use - to try and ensure that they can carrying on doing just as they wish.

It is not whether you like censorship - like others to be censored -like to be censored yourself - or if you like censoring others - but if these measures actually work?

Are there less counter-productive measures that may work better?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:19 AM

99...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 03:20 AM

100!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Billy Suggers
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:42 AM

Well I think this place is just GREAT - and Joe & co do a hero's job. There are things that don't fit in a folk - oriented place like this & are better fulminated about elsewhere - and they are rare indeed.

What the admins do here is not so much censorship as an appplication of common sense & common decency. And THATS what makes a community a community. Try to regulate it (or totally de-regulate it, which is the same thing if you think about it) and the whole damn thing fails. Leave it to taste & common sense and it works. I'm all for benign dictatorship!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:40 AM

Let us look in detail at the recent and favoured methods of censorship we are currently expected support and examine who these measures actually affect the most.

The imposed deleting of entire threads throws out all the positive contributions made in the thread, along with the bathwater and prevents any new postive contributions from being made and posibly altering the thread's course as a result.

The imposed closure of entire threads prevents any new postive contributions from being made and posibly altering the thread's course as a result.

The imposed deletion of the offending posts only - is slightly less counter-productive but for some reason, seems to be less favoured.

It is accepted that these methods are reactive and none of them - actually prevents the offending posts from first appearing.

Members who are thought to have offended - can be contacted by personal messages and threatened with having all of their future posts blocked. Any subsequently blocking will prevent any future posts thought to be offending from this member - but will also prevent any positive ones from them.

Such action against 'guests' - may be possibly but more difficult.   

Who is entrusted to impose this censorship?

Well we are told Max has entrusted Joe and Jeff and the number and identity of the rest of our volunteer censors are intentionally witheld.

Do any of these counter-productive measure prevent anything? Or could it be that in practice they acually make things worse?

None of us may like seeing the offending posts here - but that does not mean that we have to support the only answer proposed - especially as this cannot prevent the ofending posts from appearing.

Are there alternatives to this censorship?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:07 AM

Actually sometimes I wish there were MORE censorship here, some way to weed out banality and insipid attempts at humor that aren't funny; some way to filter out the intentional lure, the troll, the gouging and the come-ons which are meant only to embroil others; some way to block the inanity and kill posts which are intended to distress others.

But that would not be the Mudcat, would it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:36 AM

and where is JOhn from Hull? silence for some time now as he has been blocked. JOhn we miss you.

---

No, he hasn't been blocked.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 10:17 AM

Actually sometimes I wish there were MORE censorship here, some way to weed out banality and insipid attempts at humor that aren't funny; some way to filter out the intentional lure, the troll, the gouging and the come-ons which are meant only to embroil others; some way to block the inanity and kill posts which are intended to distress others.

But that would not be the Mudcat, would it?

No and it would not be the real world either. Many of us would probably agree with your aims but it is a knee-jerk' - 'wish list' if an understandable one.

Achieving any of it - is not done by a easily stated wish for MORE censorship. As in practical terms this means placing your trust in someone elses judgement to remove just the things YOU don't want and leave the things YOU do.

That is what I mean by censorship just creating and adding to the problems.

Unless you give-up and go elsewhere - there is no easy short-cut to you making the choices on the forum. To you deciding what to open. To you deciding what to ignore or what to respond to. Inviting censorship to do this for you - just means that you are denied more and more of these choices. And there WILL be more censorship you will find you may not agree with - as it is like flood-water - you can say when the level is plenty high enough for your liking - but the water tends to keep-on rising anyway.

The answer to all this is simple and many posters simply get on and do it. Perhaps more posters (and our volunteers) can be encouraged to follow the fine example that these posters are currently setting.

You ignore what is not to your taste. You don't ever respond (especially in kind) to obvious provocation and you do not ever encourage others to do this. There is nothing funny in doing this - the idea that there is any humour in this - probably causes of most of the forum's problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 11:08 AM

Yes Shambles, whatever you say Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: SINSULL
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:47 PM

jOhn from Hull is experiencing technical difficulties and has not been blocked. See Joe Offer's post on the JfromH thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 04:59 PM

Be glad I'm not one of the mods here, or there'd be a HELL of a lot MORE 'censorship'

But ya... if ya don't like it, lump it!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 05:06 PM

OK, I am glad.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:39 PM

The time and money saved from avoiding bitter litigation allows the censorship here to pay for itself.

Not to mention forgoing years in prison for the spiteful undesirables such as XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX and XXXXXX XXXXXX who post links to child porn .

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:48 PM

"...some way to weed out banality and insipid attempts at humor that aren't funny;"

But then it wouldn't be cross-cultural/transatlantic anymore, would it? And who would hold sway? ...the Brits who don't get our humor, or we who don't get theirs?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 07:05 PM

I think it might sometimes improve the tone if the true names and addresses of those who set out to be offensive (guess who I nominate) were published.

I really (sometimes) would like to know what makes some of the offenders tick.

Speaking as one of the earlier offenders, with a thread a long time back called "Has Gargoyle got piles?" - I don't care if he has piles, I just wanted to know why sometimes he can be a rational and constructive individual and sometimes quite - well, you know.

As John Barden (or was it Dave Bryant?) said some time ago - we use our real names, and you can easily trace us. We accept responsibiity for waht we say.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Once Famous
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:16 PM

Send all correspondence to:

Martin Gibson

c/o Prince Charles
Fuckingham Palace
London, England
Planet Earth

I'll be waiting for your card, DICK!


Hah!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:48 PM

"...some way to weed out banality and insipid attempts at humor that aren't funny"

There is... don't post to them...

This place'd be pretty damn quiet if it wasn't for those post though...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 05:00 AM

Even got Prince Charles's address wrong!!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:26 PM

I'm sure he'd get the card, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:14 PM

Perhaps we should also leave the Iraq situation to the people who try hard to get it right...and stop criticising them....and leave our Governments to do what they do best....they do it better than we would O.K???????

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:29 PM

We tried that, Nameless.

It didn't work well at all.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 01:10 AM

69!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 03 Feb 05 - 04:34 AM

The breakfast of champions.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gurney
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 04:42 AM

Somehow I always pictured that as someone eating sparkplugs...

I've posted this before, and now again. I've been on a forum that was virtually closed by backbiting and illwill. And no, I took no part in it.
Twats will always be with us, but a lot of guests are members in making, and contributers, so I do approve of guests being able to post.
I vote (if anyone is interested) that the present level of moderating be maintained.
I don't think it is really censorship.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 07:09 AM

It's not censorship in the institutional sense. It's a civilizing restraint. But whining comes with the territory.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 05 - 07:59 AM

Censor





Official with power to supress whole or parts of books, plays, films, news,letters etc, on grounds of obscenity,threat to security, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 06:45 AM

The 'whining' (of a few noisy posters - over many years) is - what I suggest - has caused all of this quite unecessary imposed judgement. And the 'spin' - that all this censorship is vigously defended by, as being required. Despite its obvious inablity to prevent over time, the only thing it is supposed to be set-up to combat and protect us from.

For despite all the unpleasant threats made to occasional offenders by our volunteers and the deleting and closure of entire threads - the same long-term offenders are still offending (and addressed here by our volunteers quite politely). This leads many folk to post and question IF any censorship at all, IS in fact taking place.......For IF it is taking place - it does not appear to be affecting the offending posters or improving the general tone.

For all posters have always had all the tools they needed to deal with threads and posts that may not be to their taste.

The practice of passing judgement on the worth of other poster's - rather than just noting, responding or ignoring the views contained in their post - has been encouraged by our volunteers to be just about the 'only game in town'.

The constant call from many other posters - for others to be encouraged to follow the sensible and effective example - (that I suggest the majority of posters manage to set without too much difficulty) - which is never to post to respond to obvious provocation - is ignored by our volunteers.

This example is ignored in favour of invited support for continued imposed judgement action taken as they wish, by our volunteers. Who seemingly themselves are incapable of not responding in public (and in kind) to obvious provocation and generally behave just as they wish - whilst excusing and justifying every one of their actions.

That this negative example is the one that is generally being followed by many other posters - is perhaps not too surprising.

I have no expectation that any of our volunteers (known or anonymous)are going to volunteer to stop. For although this is not a paid position - it would obviously appear to have its rewards as there are no shortage of willing volunteer judges.

However and perhaps, if more and more of the rest of us do set and follow a more positive posting example - it can finally be demonstrated by us - that there is no need for any of our volunteers and their judgement to be imposed upon us? Then we will all be happy.......?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 12:35 PM

I suspect a lot of shit-disturbers come here to post because they aren't allowed to pull their kinds of crap on any other message boards...

If mudcat'd pony up, these people'd be FORCE to go the hell away...

What some here call "Censorship" (as if it's some kind of dirty word or something) most message boards call day-to-day moderation...   And they seem to tick over quite nicely...

What's wrong with posting, and enforcing a Code Of Conduct?

And to the 'mods' who claim they don't want the job of such... fine... hand your keys over to someone who will do something to help this place...

The only other option folks, is that if you don't like that mudcat ISN'T moderated, please visit the egress... (Cause things aren't likely to change around here... Someone would have to care enough to want to act... and have the back-bone TO act...)

It's not like Mudcat is the ONLY such place on the net... If it bothers you so much, find somewhere else to post...

Or accept this place for what it is... and that no matter how much you'd like it to, it's not gonna change...

It is after all, just a message board...

(I know... I know.. "Oh but we're a community!" yer gonna say... well, EVERY message board group says that.... So even if you are, it's not special... unless YOU think it is... then sure... it's special... to you...)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Once Famous
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 01:09 PM

I would like to volunteer and write the code of conduct.

OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Feb 05 - 01:26 PM

LOL!! MG... yer almost as funny as Joe!

hehehehehe

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bert
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM

The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply.

---

Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,mystified
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 10:48 AM

"BS.Prove that I ain't 'The Man'! U can't"

DELETED >> why ??????????????

---

To find threads, the easiest tool is the Filter. Put a pertinent word like prove in the Filter box and set the age back. The Filter searches thread title names only, so it's fast.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 10:56 AM

why indeed ? it seemed harmless enough for a BS thread.

someone here definitely has a problem with mudcatters having fun
and silly [drunk ???] laughs together a weekend

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 10:59 AM

"BS: Prove that I ain't 'The Man'! U can't" hasn't been deleted, or closed. It's right here:

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=78083

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 11:08 AM

oops.. false alarm
well it did'nt show up on search for me and I dont know why
the other guest couldnt find it

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 03:13 PM

"hasn't been deleted, or closed"

More's the pity

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Teresa
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 03:38 PM

Clinton says, "I suspect a lot of shit-disturbers come here to post because they aren't allowed to pull their kinds of crap on any other message boards..."

Ahem! I respectfully disagree! Checked out Slashdot or Usenet lately? Those make this place look like milk and cookies.

'tis a good thing, too in my opinion.

Teresa

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:08 PM

I gave up on Slashdot and Usenet a long time ago...

That they might stink more than some of the shit here, is hardly praise at all...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:13 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bert
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM

The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply.

Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it.
-Joe Offer-

I fear that this list can only increase - perhaps it could be first publicly explained – why when there is no editing action taken or required here – that our volunteer's reply was chosen to be made in the form of an editorial comment (so as not to refresh this thread)? Not an option that is open to all of us - as explained in the following?

Date: 01 Feb 05 - 05:23 AM on this thread http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77737&messages=82
But if I reply to a question or comment within the message where the question was asked, there's no question to whom I am responding, is there? I find that efficient and clear, and see no reason to do otherwise. It also serves to avoid refreshing threads that are contentious, even though contentious people might like to force me to refresh them.
-Joe Offer-

Perhaps it can be publicly explained what exactly our volunteers find 'contentious' about this thread - that they do not wish to refresh it? And are 'contentious people' now those who simply dare to hold and express a different view to those of our volunteers?

The thread where I spoke of contentiousness wasn't particularly contentious. I was speaking of other threads. -Joe Offer-

The problem is that well- intentioned folk like Bert are rather too ready to defend and inform other posters what they honestly believe (or are told to believe) is currently happening under the cover of our volunteer's 'spin'. This is not very helpful - as the reality – (if also still mainly well-intentioned) is somewhat different.

Bert who will protect us from deliberate personal attacks (and incitement for other to indulge in these) – when they are made upon us - by our volunteers (and defended and justified by them)? Some following examples of the double standard that is making this forum look foolish and oppressive.

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:01 AM
Max, Jeff, and Joe were off doing other things today, and missed this one. It's a personal attack, and it isn't allowed. Since so many have posted to it, I guess I won't delete it - but I will close it. This is one of the "no-brainers" that the Clones should have deleted early on, no matter what Shambles thinks. Clones, don't let Shambles care you off - you're doing a good job, but you should have deleted this and told us about it.
Bob, I'm sorry this happened.
Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:29 AM
I could delete Bob's name, but I doubt that would do any good. the damage has been done. The thread should have been deleted as soon as it appeared, and I'm sorry that didn't happen.
But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation.
Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12-Jun-04 - 03:23 AM
Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying.
-Joe Offer-

I can deal with deliberate personal attacks (even from our volunteers, if I have to). By not ever responding in kind – but I cannot accept incitement from our volunteers to encourage other posters to indulge in the very activity all this imposed volunteer judgement is supposed to be protecting us from. There are sadly many other examples of this double standard being set by our volunteers – incredibly and sadly - all of it defended and justified by them.

Perhaps Bert you can do your best to ensure that this practice – and all of this volunteer imposed judgement - can now stop and a less hypocritical and a more positive example of conduct is set for the forum's posters to follow?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:16 PM

The only thing that you can be sure of, Roger, is that I will point out that your whining seems pathological to me. Apparently there are many others that agree.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:37 PM

Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened?
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 19 Sep 04 - 10:31 PM

Why do you feed this creature?? I just read the whole thing and find 99% of it just fodder for this poor guy to continue to feel relevant with his waffle twaffle approach. I am going to suggest that all of us shun this and all of his posts, with two exceptions. I would suggest that only Sir john9 and Catspaw answer him from here on out. Let's give it try, eh? This ought to be fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 05:00 PM

I agree, Roger. I think that your hauling out this old post is your subconscious way of acknowledging I am right. Why don't you just try contributing like you did in the old days. You had some relevance then.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:03 AM

I do always try to contribute as positively as I can. But as everyone can see from this latest personal attack by you upon me - made just after my plea for a better example to be set - my 'relevance' - mental capacity and just about every other part of my personality are judged on the basis only what I post. By you and your other nameless and numberless volunteer 'posse' members - who directly and by setting such a poor public example from this special postion of responsibility - are encouraging other posters to judge others in the same needless fashion and to post personal attacks also.

Some other volunteers use their 'editorial comments' to contribute to this discussion (so as not to refresh this thread). Any comment on the issue from anyone will be welcome (whatever their view). But you (as a known volunteer) refreshing this thread by making only one of your usual bullying personal attacks - will only make my point and just make things worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:15 AM

Another 'editorial comment' made in this thread (and not refreshing this thread) when there was no editorial action taken.

The thread where I spoke of contentiousness wasn't particularly contentious. I was speaking of other threads.
-Joe Offer-

The thread referred to as 'wasn't particulaly contentious' - was still subject to two 'editorial' contributions to this thread - neither of these contributions - refreshed it. Why?

As it it was not judged as a 'contentious' thread - why not set a good example and contribute to it in the conventional that is open to everyone else and refresh the thread. Or ignore the thread - if you did not wish to refresh it?

---

There, now, Roger, don't get your hinder in a binder. Try to think back on what it was I said about my reasons for posting editorial answers within the message that asks the question. Avoiding refreshing a contentious thread was a secondary reason, an advantageous side-effect. Can you think of the major reason I gave?
You know, if you don't pay attention, it doesn't do me any good to bother answering your questions. So, I guess I consider this issue closed. I understand what you are saying. You don't like it when I type in brown in messages. That is your preference as to what I should do in regard to this matter. I prefer to answer questions where they are asked, because it is efficient and direct and avoids confusion - and it avoids refreshing contentious threads. And since this is my action we're talking about, I think that my preference holds sway - although both our preferences may be completely valid. And whatever the case, it really isn't a big deal either way. The fate of the world does not depend on whether or where I type in brown.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:59 AM

The facts are all here - it is up to those reading this to judge.

In the use of these so-called 'editorial' comments - all that is being politely requested (and ignored) - is they are always confined to accompany some 'editorial action'. Where there is no such action imposed upon us in the thread - any contribution (or judgement on the worth of the thread))that any volunteer wishes to make - can then be made under the same conditions as everyone else. By either refreshing the thread or not doing - so by ignoring the thread.

In both these cases - the volunteer in question had chosen - earlier made a contribution in the conventional manner and as a result had already refreshed the thread once. Clever reasons and justification have already been given and can probably continue to be made for the defence of this double standard. It would be nice if they were not.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 05:42 AM

There, now, Roger, don't get your hinder in a binder. Try to think back on what it was I said about my reasons for posting editorial answers within the message that asks the question. Avoiding refreshing a contentious thread was a secondary reason, an advantageous side-effect. Can you think of the major reason I gave?
You know, if you don't pay attention, it doesn't do me any good to bother answering your questions. So, I guess I consider this issue closed. I understand what you are saying. You don't like it when I type in brown in messages. That is your preference as to what I should do in regard to this matter. I prefer to answer questions where they are asked, because it is efficient and direct and avoids confusion - and it avoids refreshing contentious threads. And since this is my action we're talking about, I think that my preference holds sway - although both our preferences may be completely valid. And whatever the case, it really isn't a big deal either way. The fate of the world does not depend on whether or where I type in brown.

-Joe Offer-

It matters little what colour these 'editorial comments' come in. My request - that has been ignored in order to present yet more 'spin' - is that in order to set a good example to others - this practive be confined to only when some editorial action has in fact taken place.

For the other advantage of this privilige given to our anonymous volunteers and in my opinion abused by them - is that having placed their so -called 'editorial' comment - if they are later not satisfied with it - they can come back and change or add to it (as was done above). Again without refreshing a thread that (in this case) was already posted to and refreshed in the conventional way.

The rest of us ordinary mortals would have to either simply accept what we had originally posted or have to post again.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 02:20 AM

I think that my preference holds sway - although both our preferences may be completely valid.

Our preferences may be thought by some to be completely perfectly valid - but sadly our preferences are not completely equal. As your preferences are not open to the rest of us.

Like many other posters - I prefer NOT to make abusive personal attacks on others and prefer not to incite others others to do this. Unlike our volunteers who do prefer to do this and will use any 'spin' to later justify these attacks - no matter how hypocritical that setting this poor example appears to the forum.

Setting a good example by never indulging in this practice - no matter what the provocation - is a preference that would hope that should 'hold sway' if the entire purpose of all this imposed volunteer judgement was really as stated. And was not - as I suspect that it now is - (well-intentioned) people who simply do what they prefer to do (in other words - as they like) and will defend and justify all of their imposed judgement of others - by the use of clever-sounding but hollow 'spin'.

As I said - I do not expect our volunteers to volunteer to stop or to volunteer to set a better example. But the facts are all here for all posters to judge them.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 06:09 PM

Is a benign dictatorship a reality


Can closed threads be re-opened

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Feb 05 - 11:39 PM

You're drooling all over yourself again shambles...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 11:47 AM

why is it that GUESTS are never censo

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 11:59 AM

the truth of the matter is that if censorship was as much a problem on the Cat as roger suggests- this thread - and many others - would not be visible.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 01:11 PM

Ah, but that's part of the fiendish conspiracy, don't you see? Leave a thread about censorship untouched, but cut, slash and burn where opinions don't fit those of Those In The Know just coincidence. There is no censorship on Mudcat.

PLUS I am sure I hear an extra click when I click the mouse button; I am sure it's been taken over by Those Who Oversee Joe Offer means well.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Feb 05 - 02:59 PM

the truth of the matter is that if censorship was as much a problem on the Cat as roger suggests- this thread - and many others - would not be visible.

What I demonstrate is that the reality of all this (probably well-intentioned) censorship - is not the same as the 'spin' and justification that is given by those volunteers who mainly wish to continue to impose their reactive judgement upon others.

I suggest that this form of imposed censorship is just creating another unecessary problem, setting the wrong example, creating more division and making little difference to the problem it is supposed to be addressing.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 06:58 PM

Deleted post

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 18 Feb 05 - 07:02 PM

I can't be arsed.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 19 Feb 05 - 08:34 AM

Personally, i don't think we should need censorship...we're adults, right? We should be able to know what is likely to cause trouble, and not post it. And when someone does it deliberately, we should be able to ignore it and deprive them of the attention they're looking for...but hey...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 06:43 AM

http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=2645&messages=94

To save going over it all again - you will find most of the detailed argument in the above thread.

Questions that I had to ask many times in this thread - were eventually answered by Joe Offer.

Please explain to me why it not possible, polite or desirable to obtain the originator's permission before making any changes to thread titles?

Why is imposition thought now to be the first, best and only option?

As for your question that you have repeated ad nauseam, my answer is that I do not believe it is necessary to expend so much time and effort on a simple editorial action. If the thread or message originator wishes to object or to discuss an editorial action with me, they are free to do so.

Like many such answers to many similar questions on this subject – the answer can probably be summed-up as 'because that is what I (or sometimes 'we') choose to do' - live with it......

All I can do is to try and ensure that contributors are aware of the reality of what is happening to our forum - under the 'spin' and leave it for you to judge if this is really the right direction.

Now I always had thought that what a thread was titled was a matter for the originator. I also thought that using a prefix or not – was an option for the originator. This is not the case – Joe Offer tells us that these are for our anonymous volunteers to change at will – and without first obtaining permission from the originator.

Song Challenge; Camilla and Charlie were lovers

The Song Challenge bit - was added anonymously – without first asking if I minded this change.

I do mind this imposed change - because it was a thread parody song – with the intention of folk being invited to add to and finish this song. A song challenge is for different songs on the same subject.

I asked (in this thread) if this could be changed back. The choice that Joe Offer now presents me with is to leave it as it is - or for him to remove the Song Challenge bit – and this will then result in this musical contribution being placed with the BS……………..

Not perhaps the biggest single issue facing the world - but perhaps worth bringing attention to and sensibly debating in this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 06:49 AM

The events surrounding this thread may be of interest too?

Sing Song Banned

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 06:59 AM

My recent Accordion thread got stuffed around with too - changing it from a nonsense thread to a BS thread - instead of putting the 'serious' posts into the previous sensible thread... sigh!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 07:07 AM

The horrors of Darfur

This thread - (perhaps one that should be brought to everyone's attention) did escape (for a while) with a FOLKLORE prefix - before being confined 'below decks'.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 02:51 PM

You know, Shambles, you're absolutely correct. Things could be done differently. Sometimes, though, choices are made that are not your choices. Such are the vicissitudes of life. The editorial actions you question were performed for good, honest reasons. These actions may not fit your criteria, even though your criteria may be perfectly valid and commendable - but what else is new?

Thread titles are changed to make the Forum Index more understandable and to make threads easier to find. Threads are given titles that will help people decide whether to open or not to open a thread. If we change a thread title, we usually try to do it by adding a word or a tag, leaving the original title mostly intact - we do this out of respect for the intentions of the person who originated the thread, but also with the intention of making the Forum Menu a more useful index. While we respect the intent of the thread originator, a thread is a community creation and not subject to the control of the originator.

Let's take an example. Somebody started a thread the other day and titled it Phil Ochs. There are several other threads with the same title, and we've included them all in our Phil Ochs crosslinks. The thread originator wanted to know if anyone had seen Ochs perform live - so I changed the title to "Phil Ochs - ever see him perform?." Doesn't that make sense - to differentiate this thread from all the others with the same title?

The Horrors of Dafur thread started with a "Folklore" tag, but it was not related to folklore in any way and it did not belong in the music part of the Forum because it had no music information in it. It's understandable that the originator wouldn't want to put a "BS" label on a thread about a tragedy. The originator could have left the tag blank, but it's no big deal either way. In situations like that, we just remove the improper tag and move the thread to the non-music section - without the "BS" tag. We do the same with non-music obituaries - move them to the non-music side without adding a BS tag. These are common-sense things done to make Mudcat easier to navigate. Changing a thread title is not an earth-shaking decision, and there's no need to discuss every such action. If we stopped to discuss each thread title change we make, we'd never get anything done. Usually, we use common sense, and nobody objects. Note also that when we change thread titles, we ordinarily leave the message title of the original message unchanged - another attempt to honor the intention of the thread originator (we do occasionally change message titles for indexing purposes, particularly when messages contain lyrics or other music information that needs to be indexed).

Non-music threads go to the bottom half of the Forum Menu because they are not related to music - not because they are "bad" threads. Sometimes, a thread will be moved from top to bottom or vice-versa as the thread develops in one direction or another. It may start out as a chit-chat thread and end up loaded with songs. I suppose one could argue that some people don't notice threads in the bottom half of the Forum, and so "important" threads should be kept up top. One could also argue that if we keep "important" non-music threads on the bottom, maybe people will learn to take a look there on occasion.

Many of the editorial decisions made here are arbitrary - but most of the decisions we make in life are arbitrary, aren't they?
We make choices, and life goes on. We could choose other things, and life would still go on. Or, we could stop and debate every step we take until we all come to agreement - and life would come to a standstill.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 04:24 PM

Roger - I would never dispute your sincerity, but I would always rather have Joe moderating events than you. Joe is pushed in when people may be stepping on toes. You step on toes when no-one ever pushed you in. Go figure....

Nothing personal. I look forward to buying you a pint some time. But... Joe & the clones let the board breathe. I'm not saying you'd asphyxiate it, but despite your talk of freedom, I suspect you'd struggle to resist the temptation to strangle it...

Regards,

Rædwulf

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 07:39 PM

Yeah, well since there was a previous Accordion 'serious' thread - I started a 'silly' one for some fun, but it turned into a serious one - my frustration is not with the editors, but all the posters who didn't read closely or think on the right wavelength.... this place does have a life of it's own.... which is why I keep coming back.

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Pauline L
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 09:15 PM

I hang out at another forum that uses a Moderator system. People who post frequently are sometimes given three points to award that day. The points are "recommend" or remove." "recommend" and "remove" points are shown on the screen. Most people use their "removes" to target personal insults, which most of us don't like and don't want on our website. When a post gets a certain number of "removes," that post is deleted, but the thread remains. The method works pretty well. The group is much smaller than Mudcat, and that contributes to the success of this method.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 05:34 AM

Shambles, I far prefer your previous, positive attitude on this forum, as exemplified by your post to the first thread I ever started on the Mudcat, nearly 5 years ago.

You seem pretty exclusively negative these days, which gets very wearing for even the most tolerant people.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 07:34 AM

Sadly we ALL (at some time will) have to accept that we have no control over the postings of others.

Noreen I prefer Joe's positive side and I try to keep my postings as positive as I feel his less than positive control over every aspect of the current set-up will permit.

Why IS imposition thought now to be be the first, best and only option?

Is it really so very necessary that the thread song that I started - should have to have the title that Joe Offer imposed upon it - or else be confined to the BS?

Is this really positive? Or is it something else? I will leave you to judge.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 09:08 AM

It's something else Rambles...

Joe is in a position of authority here - a position Max has kept him in for years - the only reason I can assume for that is that Max believes Joe does his job well ... but come on...

"control over every aspect of the current set-up".

Your lines of reasoning are insane,

This time I will try to ask you to explain to me how come Joe has authority above Max?

The only logic I can see in your arguments remains that Max is either in control or out of control at your convenience.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:44 PM

Changing a thread title is not an earth-shaking decision, and there's no need to discuss every such action. If we stopped to discuss each thread title change we make, we'd never get anything done. Usually, we use common sense, and nobody objects.

If changing a thread title is not considered (by our volunteers) to be 'earth-shaking' – then by the same token - leaving it as the invited contributor intended - will not shake the earth either. For at this point, the imposed change may well be considered to 'earth-shaking' by the contributor and a little prior discussion may not go amiss – as this is still a discussion forum. Some may consider this to be common sense and more in keeping with the spirit of our forum.

I am not sure what other things are needed to get done – but I do feel that whatever is done - should always take enough time be done properly. As in cases like these there is no earth-shaking hurry – is there? So there is no real reason why the originator cannot be first consulted about any proposed action.

As in this case – when somebody does object to the anonymous imposed judgement and action – perhaps they should not then, just be presented with more – take-it-or leave-it - options?

For this was a positive musical contribution – why should there ever be any question of it being sent to the non-music section?

Subject: RE: BS: Fu#kin' Censor THIS!
From: Peace
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:46 PM

What a friggin' drag.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:50 PM

What load of blather

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:55 PM

I want Clinton Hammond censored! He is insensitive and has strong opinions that are crap. He also had a hit done on a skunk once. He is deeply evil. His remarks should be censored, so as to spare the feelings of sensitive, caring people and animals...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:01 PM

"to spare the feelings of sensitive, caring people"

Falicy... no such being...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:13 PM

That's "fallacy", Roscoe...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:16 PM

Yer right it is... I blame my state of under-caffeine-'dness...

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:19 PM

Which reminds me...I need to log off and get some lunch. Thanks, Clinton!

Shambles...? Carry on without us.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 02:56 PM

He usually does, & never notices that he's the only one talking or listening... :-/

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 03:30 PM

I'd imagine it's pretty difficult to pay attention to the rest of the world, with ones head so far up ones own ass...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 06:00 PM

LOL! I love you deep down, Clinton...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 06:20 PM

I don't care, I'm not GOING deep down!

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:05 AM

You two wanna be alone?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:09 AM

THIS heralds censorship. THIS ain't what happens here, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:11 AM

... so you provide a link to it...

Very good, brucie.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:47 AM

Thank you, GUEST.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: RichM
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:40 AM

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:12 AM

Looks like an old Scandinavian 'magic' symbol to me, brucie... And a Far East 'magic' symbol...   That it was at one time co-opted by the insane should not be held against the symbol...

Context is all

I don't see what it has to do with the thread though...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 04:45 PM

People who complain about censorship have no bloody idea what it was like under the Nazis. That was censorship. Likening what happens here (pruning) to censorship is absurd, IMO. That's what it has to do with the thread, Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 04:51 PM

" Likening what happens here (pruning) to censorship"
I guess it's just a matter of degrees brucie...

If my neighbour builds a fence that's a foot over my side of the property line, should I not complain, because in the past white people stole the whole continent from the natives? hardly...

"have no bloody idea what it was like under the Nazis"
And unless you were there, neither do you...

"absurd"
Absolutely...   THERE we agree 100%! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 05:09 PM

19 posts in a row on this thread and none of them from Shambles moaning about how Joe Offer pooped his party. That must be a record!
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 05:19 PM

Clinton,

The stuff that gets 'pruned' here deserves it. Many moons ago someone posted to say that he/she (it was a GUEST) would like to kill an elected official who is in Washington. It was one of thos posts where stuff got outta control. That was a breach of Federal law in the USA. I said so within a few posts. The GUEST post was deleted. Good call on someone's part.

My ex-father-in-law was a guest of the Third Reich in one of the camps. His wife was in Belgium during WWII, and I listened to both of them when they talked about it. So, in a manner you are right. I, personally, don't know. However, I personally DO know--if you know what I mean, and even if you don't.

The fence analogy: there are laws to handle the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 05:23 PM

I seem to have censored my Name !!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 05:25 PM

I'm wondering if "Godwin's Law" for web forums as well as Usenet. If so, I suppose we can put this baby to bed. (Sometime this century, maybe.)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:04 PM

"That was a breach of Federal law in the USA."
The internet is a global medium that doesn't (At least it shouldn't) give a flying f#ck for "USA Federal Law"... I do plenty of things that might be considered 'illegal' in the USA or in other countries... I do things that some people might call immoral too... wanna ask me how much I care?

" The stuff that gets 'pruned' here deserves it."
Some say not enough stuff here gets pruned/deleted/censored or whatever you wanna call it... some say too much... There's only ONE persons say that has ANY merit, and that's Max (And 'him' through the people he has chosen to mod in his absence)

My fence analogy, you obviously missed the point...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:12 PM

Clinton,

Ya want to argue do so. But not with me, OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:54 PM

That would be another kind of censorship, brucie. If there's going to be free speech, Clinton can argue with whoever the hell he likes..., including you.

And you should accept that

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:56 PM

Let's hear another apology from brucie!!

C'mon brucie...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:58 PM

Roger - I would never dispute your sincerity, but I would always rather have Joe moderating events than you. Joe is pushed in when people may be stepping on toes. You step on toes when no-one ever pushed you in. Go figure....

Well as I would never wish to - or ever feel qualified to impose my judgement (sincere or otherwise) upon anyone else - and Joe is very likely to un-volunteer - and none of us have a say in it anyway - there is not much to figure - but it is a view and at least a contibution to a debate on a public discussion forum. As to describing what is now going on - on our forum, as moderation......

Moderator: arbitrator, mediator; Prespyterian minister presiding over any ecclesiastical body.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:05 PM

"That would be another kind of censorship, brucie. If there's going to be free speech, Clinton can argue with whoever the hell he likes..., including you."

Who the hell are YOU?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:05 PM

TS... go outside... pay a screen-door on a submarine a nickel to trade places with you... get yourself a better life than the one you currently have...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:06 PM

"Let's hear another apology from brucie!!"

Here's yer apology GUEST: Go take a flying fuck to yerself, dipshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:09 PM

Who am I?
Well I'm me, of course, and I respect the right of Clinton to argue with me, if he so wishes.

Do you not?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:09 PM

You ain't no one. You are a nameless dipshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:11 PM

Good man brucie!

Isn't that the kind of thinking that led to the extermination camps, in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:11 PM

"Well I'm me, of course, and I respect the right of Clinton to argue with me, if he so wishes."

You ain't you. You're a dipshit. Period. And a periodic dipshit at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:12 PM

"Isn't that the kind of thinking that led to the extermination camps, in the first place?"

You are STILL a dipshit. And a stupid one at that. Go shag yerself.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:14 PM

PS Dipshit: I got no more time for you today.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:15 PM

Heavens above brucie!!

Do you not see yourself as sharing the same traits as Hitler?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,another guest
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:29 PM

Seriously though, brucie, Guest has a point.

You might want to go to an anger management course. You seem to revert to insult, when you seem to have no answer.

That is very bad.

Especially for a school teacher

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:40 PM

Well Rambles I don't doubt your insincerity.

Your logic would demand Max to be so perverse that he actually appoints people to destroy his own dreams. (something I do not believe he is)

Try adding words like "appointed by Max" when referring to Joe or the clones and you would see how nonsensical you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:05 PM

Brucie... grow the f#ck up would ya...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Niggly
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:06 PM

Which Hitlerian traits did you have in mind, Guest?

I've heard that Hitler loved dogs, for instance. He was also highly patriotic, and he nursed a deep sense of grievance for past historical wrongs against his people, as he saw them. He thought his people were the most special people in the world, and deserved a special role.

Aren't those all traits of Ariel Sharon? (although I'm not sure about the dogs part...)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:30 PM

Which traits?
Linking the swastika to here, for 1.

Don't think Ariel would have done that

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:33 PM

Then why did he invade their country?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:43 PM

Good question, Amos.

But does Ariel Sharon go around calling people 'nobodys', 'dipshits Period', Periodic dipshits, and then refusing to apologise for attempting to stifle the right of some-one else on this Forum to speak freely?

Mmmmmmm, I see your point.

There you are, brucie.
Ariel and Adolph, all in one!

Do you have a dog?
(I don't want to know the answer to that, really)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 09:36 PM

Bruce, you really shouldn't go around calling nameless people dipshits. I've never thought of asking this before- What IS a "dipshit"?
The world wants to know.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 09:40 PM

Oh dear...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:25 PM

A dipshit is the offspring of a jerkwad and a fucknuts. It's in the fourth tier of profane vocabulary.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 05 - 12:06 AM

And there you have it. Very good, Spaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 27 Feb 05 - 12:13 AM

Whatever you say.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 27 Feb 05 - 12:19 AM

That to Clinton, guest, other guest and other guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 05 - 10:58 PM

I wonder what's on the third tier?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 01:47 AM

"Complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation." Saint Augustine.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 05:00 AM

He used to masturbate a lot, Sham, didn't he?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 08:44 AM

Perfect moderation is a silly idea. People who are moderate do not try to be perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Mr (almost perfect) Red
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 09:16 AM

How about moderating purfecshun?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 08:25 PM

Everything in moderation
Especially moderation........

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 08:53 AM

your'e all nuts!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 10:16 AM

"To go beyond the bounds of moderation is to outrage humanity." Blaise Pascal

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Charlie from Ashby de la Zouch (by the sea)
Date: 01 Mar 05 - 10:43 AM

Sounds like a good excuse for a bit of Jake Thakeray:

I love a good bum on a woman, it makes my day.
To me it is palpable proof of God's existence, a posteriori.
Also I love breasts and arms and ankles, elbows, knees;
It's the tongue, the tongue, the tongue on a woman that spoils the job for me.
Please understand I respect and admire the frailer sex
And I honour them every bit as much as the next misogynist.
But give some women the ghost of a chance to talk and thereupon
They go on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on.

I fell in love with a woman with wonderful thighs and hips
And a sensational belly. I just never noticed her lips were always moving.
Only when we got to the altar and she had to say "I do"
And she folded her arms and gathered herself and took in a breath and I knew
She could have gone on again, on again, on again till the entire
Congregation passed out and the vicar passed on and the choirboys passed through puberty.
At the reception I gloomily noted her family's jubilant mood,
Their maniacal laughter and their ghastly gratitude.

She talks to me when I go for a shave or a sleep or a swim.
She talks to me on a Sunday when I go singing hymns and drinking heavily.
When I go mending my chimney pot she's down there in the street,
And at ninety-five on my motorbike she's on the pillion seat
Wittering on again, on again, on and again and again.
When I'm eating or drinking or reading or thinking or when I'm saying my rosary.
She will never stop talking to me; she is one of those women who
Will never use three or four words when a couple of thousand will easily do!

She also talks without stopping to me in our bed of a night;
Throughout the sweetest of our intimate delights she never gives over.
Not even stopping while we go hammer and tongs towards the peak -
Except maybe for a sigh and a groan and one perfunctory shriek.
Then she goes on again, on again, on again on and I must
Assume that she has never noticed that she's just been interrupted.
Totally unruffled she is, and as far as I can see
I might just as well have been posting a letter or stirring up the tea!

She will not take a hint, not once she's made a start.
I can yawn or belch or bleed or faint or fart - she'll not drop a syllable.
I could stand in front of her grimly sharpening up an axe,
I could sprinkle her with paraffin, and ask her for a match -
She'd just go on again, on again, on again even more.
The hind leg of a donkey is peanuts for her, she can bore the balls off a buffalo.
"Mother of God," I cried one day, "Oh, let your kingdom come
"And in the meantime, Mother, could you strike this bugger dumb?"

Well, believe it or not, she appeared to me then and there:
The Blessed Virgin herself, in answer to my prayer, despite the vulgarity,
Shimmering softly, dressed in blue and holding up a hand.
I cocked a pious ear as the Mother of God began.
Well she went on again, on again, on again, on, and I
Will have to state how very much I sympathise with the rest of the family.
Give some women the ghost of a chance to talk and thereupon
They go on again, on again, on again, on again,
And again, and again, and again, and again
They will go on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on.

Now... take away the tits, and add a grey beard... and what image does that bring to mind?????

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 02 Mar 05 - 01:59 AM

"Exactness and neatness in moderation is a virtue, but carried to extremes narrows the mind." Francois de Salignac Fenelon

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 03:21 PM

Well as I would never wish to - or ever feel qualified to impose my judgement (sincere or otherwise) upon anyone else

Are you sure about that, Roger? Are you really really sure? Because you ram your views far more often, far more persistently & far more vehemently down everyone's throats than any of the clones ever do.

No, Max would never be daft enough to offer you the chance to moderate Mudcat. Your over-expressed, rigidly monomaniac views have shown you are not competent to be a moderator (whatever & whoever you want to quote to prove that your view is the right one).

I have fulfilled such a function in a number of different fashions on the Net & off of it. I've occasionally been criticised for it, & resigned in one instance because I felt that such criticism was entirely unjustified. I did my best, as I believe Joe does, to provide a balance between opposing views, and I was editing a snail-mail journal, which is a lot more difficult, so I feel I'm a little qualified, at least, to offer some kind of informed opinion.

Your philosophy would cause far more damage. I don't believe you'd over prune. Instead (to continue the gardening analogy), you'd allow Mudcat to be strangled by the weeds. Joe is willing to pull a few up by the roots, but you'd slowly lose the good growth as it fell away, despairing of space to flower.

Personally, as I've said before, I don't believe Mudcat is moderated as well as it could be. I think Joe & the Clones are too lenient. The baiting of brucie (which he was stupid enough (sorry brucie, but it's true!) to play up to) is a not untypical abuse of Guest privilege, IMHO. But I express my opinion occasionally, when the moment seems appropriate. And maybe Joe listens & thinks the arguments aren't quite convincing enough. And maybe he & Max think there isn't so much of a problem as to need the work & hassle that the solution would take.

But you raise it again & again. And again & again. And again & again & again & again... And you never seem to realise that it is only you banging the same tired old rhythm on the same worn out old drum. Me? I'd be wondering whether I was out of step with the rest of board & whether I ought to reconsider my opinions. But it never seems to occur to you...

Regards,

Rædwulf

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 03:27 PM

"The baiting of brucie (which he was stupid enough (sorry brucie, but it's true!) to play up to) is a not untypical abuse of Guest privilege, IMHO."

You ain't sorry. But that's OK. You sign your name, and that's good enough for me, Raedwulf. I always did like you.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 03:35 PM

Those literary quotes of Sham's are all wrong-- they are not talking about editorial moseration, but about self-control. As in, "everything in moderation."

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 03:52 PM

What is moderation? Good thought but what is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:19 PM

Come on...what is moderation?..........

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:28 PM

In the context of an internet board (which seems to escape Roger all too frequently) , moderating means keeping the discussion within "reasonable" bounds. Yes, "reasonable" is subjective & dependent on the moderators. But it is normally taken to mean pruning anything overtly offensive. So no spam (which everyone except the spammers seem to find offensive), no anonymous slanging matches (MC is a bit weak on stopping this, IMHO), public personal vitriol is discouraged (which MC allows a reasonable amount of latitude on, but does sometimes close down), that kind of thing.

It does not normally mean allowing absolutely anything, or trying to be overly sensitive. We're all adults here (more or less), & if you're not prepared for a bit of "give & take", be careful of what you say & how you express yourself. If you're flamed you quite probably asked for it (even if you didn't think so), so don't expect the mods to defend you.

Email communication is often prone to misunderstandings. Either accept that, or find another another way of explaining what you were trying to say. I've had to do both before, & I'm not always exactly conciliatory in my expressiveness, shall we say! Moderation comes from all sides, & if you're not, you've no grounds for complaint. (Note: Roger, IMHO you are not moderate in your constant sniping about moderation, as you might have gathered! ;-) )

I've no complaints about the way that Mudcat is moderated, except in the latitude allowed to anonymous Guests below the BS "salt" (which is where I usually dwell), & I've been both sinner & sinned against.

R

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:31 PM

Ashby de la Zouche by the sea?.....How far from the sea can you get?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: Oi! Brucie, you Rodney!!
From: Raedwulf
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:37 PM

*Bzzzzt*

Wrong, Mr Murdoch! I am actually sorry to tell you that you've been a pillock, but in this thread, you have been. Generally, you're a good & intelligent guy, but you don't play with trolls (been there, done that) by making yourself look a complete twit & offering them a cheap score. Which is exactly what you did here.

I like you well enough to take the trouble to tell you so. Make me do it again, & I'll call you something worse! ;-)

Regards,

Rædwulf

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:44 PM

That's OK. It's an honored tradition here to feed the trolls just enough to keep them alive. As long as you don't place them internally, make them spawn, and try to auto-nourish the results on placenta (which is something both men and women can actually do), it's OK.

Right?

:~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:55 PM

Yep! But brucie were givin' 'em breedin' room... Hence the resounding :p

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:56 PM

Eeeeeeew...........

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 09:59 PM

Coulda been worse. Least I was only castigated.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 02:52 AM

"The virtue of justice consists in moderation, as regulated by wisdom." Aristotle

The quotes are from this site called Everything In Moderation. Which is a site about the moderation of internet website etc.

http://www.everythinginmoderation.org/

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 08:44 AM

Ah, yes. Aristotle was a very prolific writer on internet issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 09:05 AM

The quotes may be from a mod site, but Aristotle was not writing about the internet!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:14 AM

"Yep! But brucie were givin' 'em breedin' room... Hence the resounding :p"

Of couse, whether or not I give a rat's ass is another issue. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Pauline L
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:35 AM

Great truths endure. Even though Aristotle didn't write about the Internet, if what he wrote was good, it can be applied to the Internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:37 AM

The internet has an entirely different meaning for the word-- it's not the same concept at all.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 Mar 05 - 06:22 AM

Raedwulf says

Are you sure about that, Roger? Are you really really sure? Because you ram your views far more often, far more persistently & far more vehemently down everyone's throats than any of the clones ever do.

I am sure that I can't 'ram' or impose - nor have I any wish to. I can only express my view, present the facts and hope to shape our forum in the traditional way – by my contributions to a discussion forum - which you and other posters, can easily choose to ignore.

Our unknown and numberless volunteers are NOW able to shape our forum by what they choose to delete by the imposition of their judgement - it is not quite so easy for the rest of us to ignore this. Especially if your invited contribution is permanently lost when an entire thread is deleted. Not because there was anything wrong with it – but because our volunteers could not be bothered to take the time, to deal only with what they considered the offending post.

In the context of an internet board (which seems to escape Roger all too frequently) , moderating means keeping the discussion within "reasonable" bounds. Yes, "reasonable" is subjective & dependent on the moderators. But it is normally taken to mean pruning anything overtly offensive. So no spam (which everyone except the spammers seem to find offensive), no anonymous slanging matches (MC is a bit weak on stopping this, IMHO), public personal vitriol is discouraged (which MC allows a reasonable amount of latitude on, but does sometimes close down), that kind of thing.

I do try and produce evidence to support my view of the reality of all this imposed censorship. See my posting in this thread of -06 Feb 05 - 04:13 PM – for evidence. This shows that our volunteers – from their privileged and responsible position- set the poor example of indulging in abusive personal attacks, incite other to do the same and seem to think this is amusing. Is this the example that moderators should be setting?

The nature of this part of a website - that is open for and has historically been shaped by the contributions of the public – does not ever escape me. I think there is evidence that it does perhaps escape some of our volunteers who are very confused about what this part of Max's website is in reality or what their imposed editing action is really try to acheive. This confusion over purpose - is very evident from the nature of the imposed editing action.

The idea that our forum is (MAINLY or ONLY) a site for research – is probably the biggest misconception. The attempt to intentionally turn our public discussion forum into this by the imposition of this view – when its strucure will allow much more - is probably the single biggest mistake. It is probably not very honest to support the editing actions of this practice either for this attempt is not moderation – it is something else.

I found this definition : person using strength or power to coerce others by fear – persecute or oppress by force or threats. This was not the definition of the methods or intention of a moderator – but those of a bully.

The facts are all here – you judge……But these facts will demonstrate that if you should post and assume to judge our volunteer judges (in any way other than being totally uncritical)- you should probably be prepared for them to mount abusive personal attacks, incite others to do this and encourage the idea that this practice is humourous - when undertaken against certain (safe) targets.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:09 AM

Another example of objective 'moderation' from our volumteers - or another example of bullying? You judge...........

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-semitism
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 15 Mar 05 - 11:10 AM

Dewey .... your attempts to alibi your original contentions won't fly.

It is entirely appropriate that we would combine threads that are essentially the same or going to the same place. Don't like it? Oh well.....

If I had caught all this earlier, I would have deleted it. Bill D doesn't need defending. His goodness shines through. As a Christian, I wish more Christians were like him. Bill might challenge your arguments, but he doesn't attack you. He is the classic example of being tolerant of others views. Would that more of my Christian brothers and sisters were like that.

Oh yeah ..... goodbye.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:58 AM

Anti-semitism

The above thread was closed.

---

Yes, Shambles, we do close threads when they get out of hand, especially when they drift into racism and personal attacks. I'm so glad you noticed, but this is not a new policy.
By the way, the Kurd Thread was also closed.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 09:11 AM

Regarding Mick's post quoted below--

1. In addition to being a supervised site volunteer workig within policies made clear by site administrators, Mick is a member here with as much right to have (and state) an opinion as anyone else.

2. If Mick HAD deleted or closed the thread in question, his action would have been reviewed by site administrators. His action could have been reversed if he had not interpreted or applied policy correctly.

There ya have it. Another tempest in a teapot, debunked.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 10:10 AM

You would appear to welcome to express your opinion and seen in isolation your judgement may appear to have some substance. However a picture is beginning to build-up from many such instances - that possibly does not support your view? But it seems that a higher authority even that our volunteers may have been responsible for closing this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-semitism
From: WYSIWYG - PM
Date: 15 Mar 05 - 04:54 PM

Dewey, as you know I'm a praying woman. I'm praying that this thread will be closed, that you will find and join the site you dream of, and that God will speak to you there in such a way that you realize how really dumb you have been at Mudcat.

~Susan

That thread was closed - so it looks as if (at least some of your) prayers were answered....By the Chief 'Goderator'?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 10:10 AM

Wikpedia entry on Internet Trolls - it's interesting, it's pretty deep, and it rings so many bells, you'll need ear plugs.

This thread: another example of personal attack via 'polite' stalking - or another example of trolling? You judge.......

.....or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 01:20 PM

In some of the personal abuse presented to me by our volunteers and their supporters - I will settle for 'polite' anything. But of course troll or trolling is just another device and yet another name to call someone whose views you may not like or share.

If this thread was such a thing it would present no threat or concern and could safely be ignored. If it was honestly thought to be such a thing - then the very best example for our volunteers to set - would be to ignore it and not to post to the thread to send it right back to the top again.

[As Joe Offer manages not to do - when he again expresses his personal view as an editorial comment when no editing has taken place and inserts it into someone else's post without their permission]

Perhaps a good guideline for the future would be that if a thread is not judged to be worth refreshing - it is not worth contributing to?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:16 PM

Oh crap, Roger! Our mods are people, not saints. As Susan has already pointed out, the mods are also members & are entitled to post their opinions. If you think that's wrong, then perhaps the rest of us should start a campaign to get you installed as a mod? I mean, we could be sure you'd never censor anything, & since you'd then feel duty bound to shut up...

;-)

Ditto to your comments about Joe. What on earth is the problem here? We all know who said what. Has it not occurred to you that perhaps Joe chose to make the remark in the 'editorial' fashion because he is commenting on Mudcat policy, rather than expressing his own personal opinion? Only if his personal opinion is in opposition to the official line does your complaint have any substance (& then only on a very technical, pedantic basis, cos we still know exactly who said what to whom...). Since, as far as I am aware, Joe's expressed opinion *is* the official line, you are, once more "tilting at windmills" Don Shambles! ;-)

In fact, it is arguable that in your persistent sniping at Joe, you are in fact indulging in a campaign of "personal abuse", albeit politely phrased (but that makes it no less wearying, believe me!). On a more tightly moderated board you would have been warned or somehow circumscribed a long time ago. Be thankful for small mercies!

If you can find threads where a moderator has both been abusive & has controlled the debate (by editing, deletion or closure) then you might well have a case for editorial abuse that needs answering. Exactly that accusation was what caused my resignation from my snail mail journal. I defended myself (with a clear conscience, I might add), the accusation was politely ("but nevertheless...") repeated, I resigned. Abuse of privilege is serious (NB: I don't regard combining two threads (vice your above quote) as stifling debate, merely streamlining it. Dewey can presumably continue to post to the open thread?).

In which case, by all means squawk as loudly & as publicly as you can. If others agree with you, I am sure that your case would be taken up. If it isn't... I'm afraid your constant repetition is something that many of us seem to find tiresome. You jump at shadows, you can be a monomaniacal bore. Too much of the reaction I've seen here suggests that too many members would be inclined to agree.

I say again, "But you raise it again & again. And again & again. And again & again & again & again... And you never seem to realise that it is only you banging the same tired old rhythm on the same worn out old drum. Me? I'd be wondering whether I was out of step with the rest of board & whether I ought to reconsider my opinions. But it never seems to occur to you..."

Do you ever stop to wonder why you make so little progress with your arguments, Roger?

Best wishes,

Rædwulf

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:31 PM

If you can find threads where a moderator has both been abusive & has controlled the debate (by editing, deletion or closure) then you might well have a case for editorial abuse that needs answering.

IF..........? *BIG SMILE*

This evidence has been provided or linked to in this thread. There is no shortage of such evidence of our forum now being shaped by this - but if you are determined to hold and express a view that ignores all of this evidence - I am not sure why you would expect me or anyone else to take your opinion seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 03:08 PM

Oy, Rædwulf, I think you've just opened the door to further tirades. Shambles has an entire library of quotations to misquote. I did make a mistake in judgment in 1907, and I said something that implied something negative about Shambles (but I did not say it in a brown editorial comment). He has copy-pasted it many times since then, in many different contexts. Since he has posted it so often, I think he may actually be quite proud of what I implied about him, but I certainly have come to regret what I said.

I also once said that I was sick of Shambles' whining, and Shambles apparently considers that to be a personal attack from me. I don't think it was an attack - but it was a personal opinion and not Mudcat policy, so I didn't put it in a brown editorial remark. He's still whining, but I've learned to take it with a sense of humor and to more-or-less ignore him most of the time.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 03:19 PM

1907? Gads, the Shambles has been going on even longer than I thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 03:40 PM

Joe, lots of people are sick of Shambles'... ummm... repetition? (Alright Roger, I'll come quietly, yes I really meant whining...) ;-)

On the other hand, I've PM'ed Roger to try to find out exactly what "evidence" he is referring to. The most obvious possibility (which I told him I assumed is not the one he means) is the thread he has referenced today. Which was going nowhere & consists of a number of people entirely disagreeing with Dewey. I wouldn't necessarily characterise it as "personal attacks", as compared with, say, the slanging match that went on between me & Martin G on the Holocaust thread (mea culpa, sinner & sinned against, to a degree!). It certainly isn't the "abusive & controlled" thread that I referred to above. If that's the thread he meant, then he's suffering tunnel vision again IMHO, but I await his clarification.

The real point here is that Roger can quote anything he wants anytime he wants. But until he gets support from named & known members, he still has one inescapable question to answer - Do you ever stop to wonder why you make so little progress with your arguments, & does it ever occur to you to wonder whether you are out of step with the rest of the board & whether you ought to reconsider your opinions.

Two different ways of asking the same thing, & a question which, so far, Roger has preferred to sidestep...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 04:16 PM

This thread reminds me of the worst case o' crabs I ever had. Took weeks and weeks to get rid of them. Like the herpes virus that rears its head at coldsore season, so too does this thread remind us that the days of our lives are numbered. Fungus in the jockstrap; warts on the petunia; tits on a bull.

Pass that over here, will ya Dave? I promise not to inhale.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:14 PM

It is entirely appropriate that we would combine threads that are essentially the same or going to the same place. Don't like it? Oh well.....

Is it entirely appropriate that thread titles are for our volunteers to impose their judgement and change in any way without seeking the permission of the originator - especially when there is no question of the original title being offensive?

And if you do not consider that this practice by our volunteers is entirely appropriate and in keeping with the spirit of our forum - is it entirely appropriate that the rest of us are told by these volunteers - at this stage in our forum's development - in effect to take it or leave it - as 'we' are going to do it anyway?

Joe Offer - whilst claiming thread titles are his to change at will -has stated that the posts themselves are sacrosanct - but does not see that insisting on imposing his editing comments in these posts - without permission and where no editing has taken place in order not to refresh the thread - is not honouring this...What is next?

---

Ah, but Roger, I draw a little line. The space above the line is your space, and I leave it alone. And I write in brown, so people won't confuse my comments with yours. Besides that, my usual brown responses are editorial comments in response to your questions about editorial actions. Does it not seem appropriate to give editorial answers to editorial questions in editorial format?
As a matter of fact, what is wrong with the brown comments, other than that they are a violation of your own arbitrary rules that you seek to impose upon the editorial staff of Mudcat? Isn't that it? - that you want to be king, and you've had a royal snit for threee years now because no one has seen fit to recognize your royalty?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:21 PM

If I had any friggin' hair left I'd pull it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:32 PM

Damn. Brucie, I had this image of you with a full head of wavy hair, just like William Shatner. I guess when one has illusions about others' hair, there's always hell toupe.

Look at it as watching somebody make balloon animals out of logic. They're supposed to be giraffes and weiner dogs and stuff like that, but they all look like sausages with legs, which pretty much means they DO look like weiner dogs, but not giraffes. And presumably, you still have eyebrows and nose hair.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:39 PM

LOL

Good one, Jeri. Yeah. I'm at the age where I got hair damn near every place I don't want it and none of the places I do. I'll be buying black satin pillow cases so's I can find it all in the morning. Thanks for the laugh there gal.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Sorcha
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:04 PM

Oh fer gawd's sake. Just shut up. First and LAST time I'll post to this one. Good grief Charlie Brown.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Azizi
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:36 PM

Forget Captain Kirk.

Where is Spock when we need him?!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,William Shatner
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:43 PM

Leonard is otherwise engaged at the moment. I'll try to handle this.

Shambles, you must realize that every world has its imperfections. No society or microcosm of society will ever meet one's every hope and requirement perfectly. Grow up, sir. Accept the fact that things are as they are, and get on with your life. Either that or buy the damned forum out, and run it as you see fit.

- William Shatner

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Azizi
Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:55 PM

But Captain,
your statement "Accept the fact that things are as they are, and get on with your life " doesn't take into consideration the drive we humans have to correct and enhance what is..

I'm not concerned about challenging "what is" from the inside.
It's just that it doesn't appear to me that Shambles has made his case that wrong has occurred.

Maybe Spock could make Shambles see reason about this.
IMO, Captain Kirk failed in his attempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:27 AM

Ah yes - logic.

Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed!
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 07:17 PM

Sorry, Peter. We routinely close or delete all threads that look like they're going to be an attack on an individual. Yours got deleted before it turned into another slugfest. There was no way it was going to turn out to be a constructive discussion.
As for any thread about gargoyle or Martin Gibson, we don't even think twice. We delete it.
Learn to live with it.
-Joe Offer-

The ability of our volunteers to read the future - to delete and close threads BEFORE they contain anything that may cause offence - is not logical Jim. As every thread has the potential to turn 'into another slugfest' perhaps all threads should be routinely deleted or closed by our all-seeing volunteers - before they can and perhaps the rest of us will just have to 'learn to live with it. For that is the logical conclusion of such imposed judgement.

Being forced to live with these ultimatums from our volunteers may be life - but not as we have come to know it on our forum.....

All I am trying to do is to demonstrate that what is defended in the 'spin' is not what is now happening in reality. The reality of this should be very clear from the evidence and links in this thread. You judge from reading this evidence - where we are now and where we are going.............

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 08:45 AM

God give me the serenity to accept things which cannot be changed;
Give me courage to change things which must be changed;
And the wisdom to distinguish one from the other.
- Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr
Union Theological Seminary
NYC, 1932

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 09:32 AM

"All I am trying to do is to demonstrate that what is defended in the 'spin' is not what is now happening in reality. The reality of this should be very clear from the evidence and links in this thread. You judge from reading this evidence - where we are now and where we are going............."

Yes, the reality is Mudcat is moving toward a higher level of moderation and not even Joe wants to say so. For a very long time we were able to enjoy the freedom that a small community can provide. Only Garg was much of a problem and even then we "knew the devil" so he was a sort of in-house troll that required very little attention. As the place grew we acquired the things that come with a larger community and that also meant that to keep pure chaos and anarchy from reigning supreme, certain steps had, repeat had, to be taken. And whether you or I or Max or Joe or Jeff like it, additional things will more than likely need to be implemented as growth continues. Sorry , but you can't go home again. Funny thing though Sham, I think Joe longs for those older days and hates the idea of doing more even more than you do. He doesn't want to do more and I think he hopes every additional thing will be the last.

But it just don't work that way.

More changes will happen. Period. You aren't going to like them and neither will Max or Jeff or Joe of me, but happen they will out of necessity. The difference here is that you think you CAN go home again and the rest of us sorrowfully know you can't. You continue to harp on these issues ad nauseum and unless you are much less intelligent that I figure you to be, I have to question the reason you do so. What is the point? Face the simple truth......You are not going to change things back to where they were and you are not going to stop the growth of this place which will make even more structure necessary. You will however sacrifice any credibility you have left. Your continual carping in the face of all reality does not make you a courageous martyr or whatever, it just makes you look like an ass.

"The ability of our volunteers to read the future - to delete and close threads BEFORE they contain anything that may cause offence - is not logical Jim. As every thread has the potential to turn 'into another slugfest' perhaps all threads should be routinely deleted or closed by our all-seeing volunteers - before they can and perhaps the rest of us will just have to 'learn to live with it. For that is the logical conclusion of such imposed judgement."

I belong to a large auto racing forum that works exactly that way and yet it is freindly with excellent discussions, many of them quite heated. But the rules are strict and the mods enforce them tightly with no recall. Even with all that is imposed there, the place is still fun and it works. No, it's not got much freedom but civil discussions are the norm and even in our "fun forum" over there, the rules are still in effect. Life there is much easier. Freedom requires personal resopnsibility and very few here will take it and it makes an A number One breeding ground for trolls and flamers.

Try to adjust and if you can't at least try and shut up. You are accomplishing nothing on any sort of positive note with this continual whining.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 02:26 PM

Yes, the reality is Mudcat is moving toward a higher level of moderation and not even Joe wants to say so.

Funny thing though Sham, I think Joe longs for those older days and hates the idea of doing more even more than you do. He doesn't want to do more and I think he hopes every additional thing will be the last.

This is what you think Joe thinks. It is not what he says and until he does say this - it is probably better if we just judge him by his actions - and what he does say.

I have not said this and I certainly have no wish to return to some mythical golden period. I support the forum continuing to natuarally evolve by its invited contributions from the public. I do not support our forum being shaped by the imposed personal judgements of a few and and deltions and thread closures being based on this.

But I also do not wish to see the same old excuses wheeled-out to justify the bad example now being set by our volunteers - in the use of abusive language, personal judgements, and generally responding in kind - by those few who assume that their inabilty to act responsibily and ignore obvious provocation - is shared by other posters. It is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM

I have been censored on Mudcat and probably Joe Offer did me a favor.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 02:49 PM

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill because they ticked me off."

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:22 PM

"I do not support our forum being shaped by the imposed personal judgements of a few and and deltions and thread closures being based on this."

Well then I'd say you're screwed because that is how these things go! The contributions of the members you so heartily endorse become nothing but forum killers as the trolls and flamers run amok unchecked. Soon there will be fewer and fewer good memebers until eventually nothing is left but the worst and then, and only then, they too will leave. In their wake they will leave nothing of value.

You can't see that though can you? You refuse to accept that moderation and censorship becomes needed when forums reach certain levels. Mudcat maintains a tiny amount by all comparison and you can't even accept that! I can direct you to some very good forums where conversations move along quite freely and yet are very heavily censored. You'd be apoplectic! And one other thing......most all of your posts on this thread would have been deleted. MAtter of fact, this entire thread would have been zapped as soon as it appeared. And yet the folks in those forums all seem to have a good time talking about the topics that interest them and there are no trolls or flamers. Mods let them know when they're stretching the envelope and things fall back in line. Personally I think that level of moderation and censorship is too much, but I can also see it works.

I fail to see why you refuse to understand that the limited moderation here is no big deal. We ought to be grateful that this is all there is. But with growth, more will probably become mandatory. Once again, as you have this grand idea of an uncensored forum, please go out and start one. Go for it. Let us know how it goes for you.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Sorcha
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:30 PM

Shambles, you are behaving like a juvenile throwing a temper tantrum. If you don't like it, why won't you just leave?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:34 PM

Once again, as you have this grand idea of an uncensored forum, please go out and start one. Go for it. Let us know how it goes for you.

There are two people I know of who DID "leave" here and start another forum. Guess what. They moderated. More than here. Because it was clear that conversation was killed off here too often without some structure. They had membership criteria, required registration, and moderation.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:36 PM

PS, that post of mine was directed to Shambles in support of catspaw's point.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 04:17 PM

Did anyone notice what a wise sage Catspaw has become? What happened to the old Catspaw that we knew and loved?
[grin]
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 04:44 PM

It can only happen when one takes a break from Mudcat for awhile. (Apparently, a longer while than I've experienced.) :~)

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: MudGuard
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 05:09 PM

Did anyone notice what a wise sage Catspaw has become? What happened to the old Catspaw that we knew and loved?

The old Catspaw got - of course - censored ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 05:19 PM

Same Shit, Different Day.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,William Shatner
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 05:40 PM

I had a heart to heart talk with him, and he's been much steadier since. Sometimes it just takes a few kind yet firm words from a more experienced hand to get a person on the right track and turn things around. I'm proud of what Pat...may I call you "Pat"?...has achieved in the last year. He's basically a very fine man with a warm and caring heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 07:05 PM

Different Day, Same Shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 08:50 PM

Feel free to call me Pat, Shatner, and I will call you Jackass.

And no, Spaw has never been censored.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 10:09 PM

Yeah, hey, my cat Van Gogh* got censored, too. Now he's an "it" - but he is much more docile.

Poor Catspaw.

-Joe Offer-



*usually known as "Gooey" or "Go-Go."

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 10:47 PM

The most unkindest cut of all.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 10:57 PM

The first cut is the deepest!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Mar 05 - 11:15 PM

Joe, here in our area, they say, "Has your dog been tutored yet?" It doesn't ever get said about female dogs tho. :~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: MudGuard
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 07:33 AM

Ups, "censored" seems to have a second meaning of which I was not aware ...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 08:51 AM

Pat

"I do not support our forum being shaped by the imposed personal judgements of a few and and deltions and thread closures being based on this."

Well then I'd say you're screwed because that is how these things go!

I think this is one of the saddest and most negative contributions that I have ever read on this forum. It reminds me far too much of the justifications that Bush and Blair are currently giving us – as to why our precious freedoms must be curtailed for the common good and why we must as do as they tell us...For if there are no remaining freedoms – there can be no common good.

Pat, you may be prepared to articulate and accept that there is some sort of inevitable decline into the negative aspects of human nature and that well-intended and very successful attempts to encourage and tolerate the public's freedom of expression – like Max's public discussion forum – are doomed into becoming the private playground of a judgmental and favoured few.

I - and I suspect many other posters do not accept this as inevitable. Things like this fine forum - only go this negative way – if some people wish it to – it suits a few others and the rest do nothing to prevent it. And if you are prepared to let the positive aspects slide and encourage the negative ones.

The contributions of the members you so heartily endorse become nothing but forum killers as the trolls and flamers run amok unchecked. Soon there will be fewer and fewer good memebers until eventually nothing is left but the worst and then, and only then, they too will leave. In their wake they will leave nothing of value.

In truth when those you would judge as 'good members' - currently set and are encouraged to set the example of acting the same and responding in kind to the flamers and trolls – it is difficult to tell them apart……….But this is a public discussion forum. It is not a place for one poster to be encouraged to judge the worth of another poster's entire personality, to call them names and question their possible motives – from only what they may post. It is what is said in the post that matters - and the only choice open to a poster is to reply or not.

You can't see that though can you? You refuse to accept that moderation and censorship becomes needed when forums reach certain levels.

You seem unable to accept the reality of a forum that still remains open to all of the public. Perhaps you should stay in those that are not? Or start one of your own where you could choose and judge your fellow posters? I can accept that some form of moderation may at some point be required but not that this is ever inevitable or when contributions reach a certain level. If this is the case – the reward for the success of Max's public discussion forum – would appear to be that it must die or become something else…………..

I fail to see why you refuse to understand that the limited moderation here is no big deal. We ought to be grateful that this is all there is. But with growth, more will probably become mandatory. Once again, as you have this grand idea of an uncensored forum, please go out and start one. Go for it. Let us know how it goes for you.

But if or when some form of moderation is ever required – I expect you may agree that the requirement is that this moderation it is always open, fair, and has a clear object. That many folk still don't think that any moderation at all is taking place and that it is currently being undertaken and imposed by anonymous fellow posters – rather knocks the first one on the head.   

If it were a matter for me to decide – if or when I thought that imposed censorship was needed on this public discussion forum and that the encouragement of setting a good example and other measures could not deal with any problems – firstly I would consider it to be a BIG DEAL. I would ensure and constantly review that whatever was introduced was open, fair and had a clear object. If or when that is the case on our forum – I will support this……My earler posts in this thread will show who is being most affected by all of this current imposed censorship.

I think the saddest part of your post was how quickly you have given-up on the special place that his forum has always been thought to be. In order - it would appear to support a place that would be as ordinary and intolerant as every other site on the internet. If this part of Max's website - that he set aside for the public's contributions had ever been ordinary - many contrubutors would not have stayed for so long and tried to ensure that it never became ordinary.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 09:01 AM

I've just had my 200th post censored!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 09:12 AM

I've just had my 200th post censored!

I didn't.

Or not yet anyway. Your one must have been judged as offensive subversive and likely to bring the whole edifice down.

There will no doubt be some editorial comment (in brown writing) to explain why your post was deleted.......?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 09:29 AM

I'll tell why my 200th post was deleted, I'll bet Leadfingers complained because he missed it! Typical bamjo player, too slow to catch a cold!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 09:37 AM

As sombody said.........

Well then I'd say you're screwed because that is how these things go!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 10:57 AM

Ted, I don't know how to tell you this, but I think Shambles got the 200th post, fair and square. I don't believe there's been a single message deleted or moved from this thread.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Flamenco ted
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:19 AM

Good afternoon Joe,
                  I can't even log in at the moment, but I have DEFINITELY had a few 100th posts deleted today!! How much is Leadfingers paying you?
                   Anyhow, no matter, I have to toddle off to the North York Moors for the weekend. Carry on deleting!
                  Flamenco, the true path!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM

Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think.
I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Flamenco ted
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:48 AM

Hang about Joe! If you re read post number 11 and 12 on this very thread, you will see that YOU tried to bag the 100th posts yourself!!! As for the music threads, I see leadfingers trophies are still all over the place. Is it a banjo thing?
Have to go TTFN

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 12:23 PM

Hey, Ted - I said the counting messages were a no-no on music threads and serious discussions. Most of us stopped taking the Shambles campaigns seriously a long, long time ago.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 12:28 PM

I find it hard to believe that this thread is still going.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 12:50 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 12:51 PM

Y'all take a good look at the post above this one. THAT is censorship. Now, please take two pills and write back in a year. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Giok
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 12:56 PM

I am totally pissed off with the whining of 'Shambles', and I'm tempted to tell him where to go, and what to do when he gets there, but that would put me back in the ranks of those who respond to flamers and trolls, and I'm 'Cold Turkey' on that one. Shambles the only thing I can say to you that is polite is "Get a life". You obviously aren't going to get your own way, and you are sulking because someone deleted your pearls of wisdom. Just give it a rest, and if you are that upset, why don't you give the benefit of your erudition and angst to another site, where they will no doubt get as fed up with you as I am.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 01:49 PM

You see Roger? Even Giok's sick of you (mind you, he's a miserable Socts ***)... ;-)

More seriously, you have sidestepped this question twice now. At the third time of asking,

Do you ever stop to wonder why you make so little progress with your arguments, & does it ever occur to you to wonder whether you are out of step with the rest of the board & whether you ought to reconsider your opinions?

Three strikes & yer out, 'ccording to ol' "Blow-job" Clinton...

And Roger, you never responded to my PM. You are avoiding & ignoring my questions. What does that say about you, that would continually question? Are you afraid of giving answers? Or is it only those answers that make you seem a fool that you avoid?

For the benefit of everyone else,

Hello Roger,

Which thread? "Censorship" has grown & I don't have time to wade through it all over again. More than one person has suggested that the Anti-semitism thread was closed because it got too personal, so I'm assuming at this point you're displaying your too well proven 'aversion' & that it's not that one. PM me the thread link & I'll take a look. Be warned though, I'll post my response to you publicly, especially if I think you're talking crap!

Best,

R

Roger won't tell me which thread he thought was particularly censored, same as he won't answer my question. Go figure...

R

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 02:41 PM

Perhaps one of the reasons I did not respond to these PMs is because what is said in these is expected to be personal, to remain private and not be publicly splashed across the forum and there are certain people I felt that could not trust to honour this convention...If so -it looks as if I was right......

BTW someone certainly did delete Flamenco Ted's 200th post. It was there when I first looked and then it was gone............Perhaps the reasons for this imposed judgement upon it, who it was that imposed it and the terrible harm that leaving it in place would have done - will be explained to us in time?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:35 PM

Perhaps some peoples habit of intruding into posts they have not made any other contribution to, just to make the 100th/200th/300th post, is regarded as not contributing anything of value to the thread, and a waste of bandwidth. If that is the case then deleting a post that contributes nothing to the sum of Mudcat Knowledge is an act of mercy. It is only done as Joe said above the line, or in the case of BS, where the thread is a serious one. That is something that will only be learned by reading the post in question, if you can't be bothered to do that then your post deserves to be deleted.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 04:27 PM

Goodnight, Mary Ellen.
Goodnight, Bobbi Jo.
Goodnight, Goodnight, Billy Bob
Goodnight, Susie Des Moines
Goodnight, Al--who the f### is Susie Des Moines?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 06:51 PM

Congratulations, Roger. That is the single worst piece of BS I've seen on this board. I asked you that question in private two days ago. You can manage to make public answers to other later responses to your comments, but (somehow) you can't answer the public question I asked twice (you're still weaselling, Roger), you can't even offer me a private acknowledgement (not even an "I don't think it's worth answering") of my PM. And when I ask the same question publicly, you whine & cry.

Why the f*** should anyone respect your 'privacy', when you don't have the 'honour', or the basic common courtesy, to offer even the slightest answer, eh? Your effort at playing 'wronged victim' is pathetic. You could have answered me, given me the chance to look at whatever thread it was that particularly annoying you (& that I would have supported you were you right was as implicit as the fact that I would have criticised you if I thought you were wrong). You didn't. Instead you chose to ignore the PM, yet 'answer' other posts that presumably serve your biased purpose better.

Face it, Roger, nobody but you & the occasional Guest thinks that Mudcat is such a terrible place. You achieve nothing & Mudcat is no 'freer' for your bleating. Until the rules change, I'm afraid you are a particularly worthless whiner. Even Guests are right occasionally. But you, off the subject of PELs...

Bye, bye, Roger...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 08:35 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bert
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM

The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it.
-Joe Offer- [in brown]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
It would appear that it far from covers it.

Posts claiming the 100th etc post in a thread - must be added to the seemingly endless and increasing list of things that must be deleted. Perfectly logical Jim - just look at the damage to the whole fabric of the forum that will be done if these terrible and subversive contributions are allowed by our volunteers to remain.......

Well apart from all that - what else have the Roman's done for us?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 09:13 PM

"Well apart from all that - what else have the Roman's done for us?"

THIS will help.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 AM

Well, Ted, I have to admit it - your #200 message was deleted - but there were two botched messages deleted before yours, so you were actually #202....or so.
-Joe Offer-

---

Here's Ted's (deleted) message:

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: flamenco ted - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:59 AM

200!! Terry, eat my shorts yet again!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:17 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM

Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think.
I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones.
-Joe Offer-[Not in brown]

The chief of the Mudcat Editorial Staff and the one in charge of our anonymous volunteers actually had no idea if this post had been deleted or not - but decided to present the defence for this imposed action anyway - just in case. But of course these type of routine deletions - because (some) people 'think of them as obnoxious' - are not a BIG DEAL and only considered worth the bother of our lesser anonymous volunteers to delete as a matter of routine in order to protect us.

Whatever one's personal taste in the posts you send or the ones you open and read - I tend to think that anonymous volunteer posters imposing their personal judgement on any of the contributions invited from the public - by Max the site's owner - should always be considered a BIG DEAL.

Perhaps, if or when the intention of the post in question - is clearly NOT offensive and there is no need to rush to protect us - the originator could be contacted - before any judgement is imposed, without their knowledge and possibly against their wishes? This would show the appropriate respect to all the contributions invited by the site's owner for many years and be more in keeping with the tolerant spirit of our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:30 AM

Tolerance cuts both ways Shambles; you should try it.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:40 AM

Here we go again Rambles. Either:

1. Joe and the clones are acting against Max's will (something I do not believe), in which case the question you really need to be asking is why Max allows such a situation to exist.

2. Joe and the clones are acting with Max's will in which case you sould be asking Max why he sets the policy (one I've no objection to) he does.

Until you at least try to make the effort, you will make no sense. This is either a persistant attack on Joe (which I suspect it is) or you have created the fantasy in your own mind that Max is in charge but isn't in charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: kendall
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 07:41 AM

Without some control this site could degenerate into just another cesspool of personal attacks, and end up inhabited by nasty people who drive good folks away.
If a handful of assholes lack the wit to temper what they say here, they should be censored.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 08:12 AM

"A handful of assholes"

I wish you hadn't said that Cap'n, such a nasty image.
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 08:28 AM

EEeeew!
Sort of an Ed Gien/Buffalo Bob (Silence of the Lambs) thing, idinit?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: harpgirl
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 09:24 AM

What I find amusing Roger, is that there are a number of people here on the thread who wish to censor you by trying to get you to stop posting about censorship just because they don't like hearing you say the same thing over and over in many different ways and sometimes with a new twist. But you have the right to continue to speak on censorship and I hope you do. Thank god you can speak up. And shame on the people who want to censor you just because you are repetitive and sometimes illogical. It is your right and I am not being sarcastic.


I for one, believe that according to their rules you will not be censored for just being repetitive, but they are tempted! So then you will have demonstrated that censorship at Mudcat occurs when someone feels like it, because they have been annoyed, or because they have arbitrary or misused powers. Sort of like the Bush administration.   

keep speaking up Roger. The world needs people like you.

love, harpgirl

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: kendall
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:02 PM

You are right, Giok, that is not a pretty sight.
Speaking as the target of a recent vicious, sick attack, I have no patience with those who lack impulse control, and combine that with a nasty inarticulate mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:20 PM

Different Shit, Same Day.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:12 PM

From the time we are born we give up freedom and liberty for convenience and safety. How far we are willing to travel the road is the question and this is why Roger that I do not support the Patriot Act and most of the other policies purporting to protect us by Bush and others. But it is silliness to argue the cause of unlimited freedom as you seem to do as NO ONE has it. In "The Political Illusion" Jacques Ellul argues that "The people will fancy an appearance of freedom; Illusion will be their native land."

Most of us assume freedoms that do not actually exist and when confronted with the fact that we must fight for them, stop and take a look at just how important that particular thing is. Now if it is important to you, then the fight and the civil disobedience required is part of the game. Are you saying that you are willing to stand up and fight for a censorless system here?   OR are there some things that YOU feel need censored?

Max has continually approved the work of Joe and The Clones and when he hasn't or has had a question, it seems as though they handled it themselves. Are you saying you want to be privvy to this? Seems to me we are ALL privvy to this because Joe and The Clones have kept right on during the YEARS you have been harping away! This should be evidence to you but I guess it isn't. How about if Max sends you a note that says, "I approve the way it is! Now shut the fuck up!"....Would that do it? Re-read Jon's comments above as I think he may have it right...............

But listen, if you think we should be censor free......Tell Joe that is the way YOU want THIS THREAD to be and I'll back you up. Then, I guess we can start playing The Dozens huh?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:18 PM

I come back to this thread regularly in hope there will be new light shed on censorship. There isn't. Keriste, Roger, if you can't change the tune will you at least change the chords?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:22 PM

Gets better and better!......beware! Whenever you give an opinion on censorship, it sort of gives something away about you!....Is this the end of the thread or does it carry on indefinitely?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:37 PM

If it carries on indefinitely, it woill becaome more difficult to access. So, if it's a vote, I go fer indefinitely.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 06:06 PM

Harpgirl:

I don't think anyone should have the right to make Shambles "Shuddup awready!". I do wish someone could persuade him to, though.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Azizi
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 08:21 PM

Shambles, you have made your point over and over and over again.
We've read it and most don't agree.

And who cares whether we agree or not..It's not our website.

Mudcat it owned by Max, right? If he doesn't agree with your position, then it seems to me that it's time for you to accept the fact. You've made your position known-as is your right-and it appears that Max doesn't buy it.

Shambles, I respect the fact that you are exercising your right to make known your discontent about what you see are problems here. And I do believe you are well meaning.

Outside of Mudcat, you may already be an advocate for other causes that have the goal of making the world a better place. If so, I applaud you.

May I suggest that you take some of the energy that you are expending fighting this cause of censorship on Mudcat and
re-direct taht energy to those other causes?

Best wishes,
Azizi

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:52 PM

Well, the irony of it all is that Shambles has never been censored. He has always been allowed to say exactly what he wants to say. Now, I will admit that we have sometimes thwarted his desire to post multiple copies of the same message in multiple threads, and we have combined threads when he has see fit to start multiple threads on the same subject - but at least one copy of every word Shambles has written remains posted here at Mudcat.

Many of us have strongly disagreed with Shambles, but I don't think that's censorship. In fact, it would be censorship if we were not allowed to disagree.

So, the only personal effect that "censorship" has had on Shambles is that he has not been allowed to post multiple copies of posts.

Poor Shambles.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:55 PM

When I was barely a teenager, there was a local "village fool" in our neighbourhood. Everyone knew his "buttons": If you mentioned the name of a well-known actress, he would drool; and if you mentioned the word "knife" he would swear uncontrollably.

The poor guy could hardly make ten steps on the street before a kid, or - just as often - a grownup, would shout either or both "buttons", just to witness his inevitable reactions for the umpteenth time.

With April Fool's Day looming, I have an idea......:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:53 AM

This is gonna be fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:39 AM

I don't think anyone should have the right to make Shambles "Shuddup awready!". I do wish someone could persuade him to, though.

I've always been a man that's open to ----persuasion. Perhaps this could be tried?

I fail to see why 'shutting me up' should appear to matter, so much to so many. For no one is imposing my view upon anyone else - against their will or forcing anyone to see it my way - if you don't open this thread or close any other thread imediately you see a post from me there - that problem is easily solved....

The wisdom or need for anonymous volunteer posters passing their personal judgement on the worth of another poster's contributions and deleting it or closing entire threads - if and when they feel like it - without the posters prior knowledge and on all occasions - remains to be addressed or debated.

Does it really have to be as unpleasant as all this bullying? If censorship or moderation MUST NOW take place on our forum (and expect to be generally supported) - should it not be OPEN, FAIR AND HAVE A CLEAR OBJECTIVE?

In all honesty - can this current practice be defended as being OPEN, FAIR AND HAVING A CLEAR OBJECTIVE?

Is it really SO good that any positive suggestions as to how effectiveness and support can be improved - must be met with sarcasm (and worse) from our volunteers and their supporters?

Anyone who may be in agreement with me that things need to be improved - is hardly likely to be prepared to post publicly to say this and subject themselves to this treatment - are they?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:48 AM

We've read it and most don't agree.

Perhaps most of those who are prepared to post to say this - are anonymous volunteers themselves?

Turkeys voting for Christmas?

Not that anyone here has a vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:19 AM

And who cares whether we agree or not..It's not our website.

This is part of Max's website that he has provided for all of us for open public discussion. So in that sense, although the website is Max's – the forum is ours. His stated role in this is only to "facilitate"

From: Max - PM
Date: 10 Mar 00 - 12:54 AM

OK, gargoyle, you got it. I tried to give your membership back months ago, but you apparently never got my message. Your tactics are crude, you are often inappropriate and rude, and I obviously cannot ever agree with you for the simple fear that anyone would think that your type of efforts could or should be effective, but you are undoubtedly a knowledgeable member of our community. My motive for your membership? People want to be able to talk to you… and as ambiguous as I may seem here, my sole function is to facilitate that… because that is what The Mudcat is all about.

May as well wheel this quote out again. With apologies to those who may have read before.

Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules
From: Max - PM
Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.

These quotes are from the time where it was accepted that 'all animals were equal' on our forum. Now that some animals appear to have taken over the farmyard - make their own rules and now declare that 'some animals are more equal than others' – to anonymously impose their judgement upon and delete the contributions of others - perhaps a review is in order?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:33 AM

Good grief Shambles, perhaps you genuinely are insane.

"Now that some animals appear to have taken over the farmyard - make their own rules and now declare that 'some animals are more equal than others"

How did they achieve this? Did they blackmail Max? Have they got him tied and gagged somewhere? Did they hack thier way into his computer?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:35 AM

Perhaps Max will explain?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:41 AM

"Perhaps Max will explain?"

At long last some progress has been made. Please do what I suggested before and ask him.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Azizi
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 08:05 AM

Shambles,
with regard to your post dated 20 Mar 05 - 06:48 AM that
quotes a comment that I had made earlier:

"We've read it [your complaints]and most don't agree."

In response to this you wrote:

"Perhaps most of those who are prepared to post to say this - are anonymous volunteers themselves? "

Well, you probably were not directing that comment to me, but just for the record let me say that I may be anonymous and I have done some volunteering for various efforts that I believe in. But if you are referring to my serving as an assistant to Joe Offer, nope that ain't me..I'm just a new kid on the block. {Well I'm not a 'kid' anymore, but the rest of my comment is the God's honest truth.}

I must say Shambles that I like the creativity of your comment "Turkeys voting for Christmas"

I hereby give you notice that I intend to borrow that phrase, but change the holiday to Thanksgiving. In so doing that would give the comment more USA cultural punch!!

Shambles, it seems you're on a mission, and no one and nothing will deter you from 'doin your thing'. Since this is a 'free country', and a free online community, I support your right to fuss.

But I thank God that no one is FORCING me to read your remarks.
That would truly be cause for concern.


Azizi

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:03 AM

Well we all know what is left on the ground in that farmyard when the animals are let out. Now unless you're into arse watching, you can't always tell which animal produced which shit, but the worst thing you can do in these circumstances, is add to the pile.
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 09:07 AM

12 - I have given fair warning

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:20 PM

El Greko, what are you counting? - the number of times Shambles quoted Max's "Don't sweat the rules" statement? I think it's 14, not counting the number of times he quoted it in the Help Forum. That guy is a copy-paste whiz, isn't he?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:39 PM

See my previous post on this thread, Joe :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:46 PM

El Greko is counting the days until THE day.

George, if you get me sucked into this one I will deserve it.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM

Well, the irony of it all is that Shambles has never been censored.

Whether my invited contributions to Max's website had ever been the unfortunate victim of imposed censorship by our anonymous volunteers or not has never been the issue (for me).

However, if I had made such a statement as the above - there usually are plenty of posters who would post to point out what they consider to be even the smallest error of fact - but as that is unlikly to happen in this case - I suppose it falls to me to point out that Joe Offer's statement is not true.

Unless of course you don't consider it to be censorship when your postings are deleted along with the entire contents of a thread - because our anonymous volunteers cannot be bothered to distingush between the offending posts and the rest?

Or when the title of a music thread (containing a song parody) is changed without your knowledged and against your wishes and you are then given the ultimatum of accepting the change - or of having your musical contribution sent to the BS section?

And talking of irony - as the Chief of the Mudcat Editorial Team was not aware that some anonymous volunteer had deleted a post from this very thread (on the subject Mudcat censorship) - perhaps it is unwise of him to make such statements?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM

Well, the irony of it all is that Shambles has never been censored

Exactly. Harpgirl, no-one has demanded that Roger be censored, we just wish he'd shut up! He's the boy who cries wolf. One day (perhaps it's already been & gone) the wolf might really turn up. If we're relying on Shanmbles for our early warning system, we're stuffed, because next to no-one cares what he has to say on the subject any more (except to tell him to shut up).

Oh, & Roger, thank you for proving my earlier point. You continue to answer other posts, but ignore the awkward question. You know, the one I asked, that you really don't seem to want to answer. Just in case you've forgotten,

Do you ever stop to wonder why you make so little progress with your arguments, & does it ever occur to you to wonder whether you are out of step with the rest of the board & whether you ought to reconsider your opinions?

(And, yeah, I looked up the other one eventually - I think you're talking crap. I'm not going to criticise Joe for those responses. I've bitten after severe provocation too. And Roger, you piss people off! Why are you so totally blind to that?)

The facts are all here - it is up to those reading this to judge. And the judgement of the majority of those who have posted here is that you're in the wrong as usual. Now what are you going to do?

Decide that you're better informed, or not the sycophantic lickspittles that you'd like to mark everyone else down as? I know what you're not going to do. You're not going to shut up, because you can't even face & answer the question that I keep asking you, & you keep hoping no-one else will notice...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 02:45 PM

Shambles you are nit picking, and if the complete thread that was deleted was so important, how come you're the only one still whinging?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 04:50 PM

Because this is all a silly game by a pitiful man who gets his validation from the abuse heaped on him. You saw a clue above when Shambles posted "Perhaps Max will explain?". If Max were to do this, then Shambles could sit back and get some validation. Of course, then he would seek more.

Shambles,I hate to break it to you but Max is someone that Joe and the rest of us reprobates made up to give you something to aspire to. It is all done with Photoshop and mirrors.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: bobad
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 05:14 PM

" gets his validation from the abuse heaped on him"

Big Mick you've hit the nail on the nail on the head there. There also seems to be no shortage of folks who get their validation from keeping him validated.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 06:25 PM

Oh alright then - for a bit of peace.

Do you ever stop to wonder why you make so little progress with your arguments, & does it ever occur to you to wonder whether you are out of step with the rest of the board & whether you ought to reconsider your opinions?

Yes.


BTW if you look back at the post of - 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 AM - you will see that Flamenco Ted's (obnoxious) message - that some unknown volunteer deleted without the Chief of the Mudcat Editorial Staff being aware of this action - has silently slipped back into this thread. There is no explanation of why it is not now considered by some - to be 'obnoxious' any more - but it does now look a bit greener than when I last saw it............

Is it really too much to expect that any future editing actions can be a bit more limited and proportionate than they are currently? These posts may be irritating to some - but to describe them as 'obnoxious' in order to delete them - when there are far more 'obnoxious' posts that do safely remain - is hardly proportionate or sensible.

These posts do at least provide some fun to those who post them and as there is no question of them causing any real offence - perhaps it can be accepted that these are viewed as simply a matter of taste?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Mar 05 - 07:16 PM

HELP make the rules, Shambles.
That's what Max said.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 01:51 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules.

It is as well to provide all the words of the quote. The word 'us' is important - its use by Max in this context - is inclusve and accommodating. It means ALL of 'us'.

The use now - of the word 'we' by our anonymous volunteers - in the sense of which of Max's invited contributions 'we' allow and what we routinly delete - is exclusive and divisive.

Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none. Seems clear enough.......

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 03:16 AM

What does the re-insated message add to the sum of human knowledge, the erudition of Mudcat, and the average mental age of some of its contributors? If the deleted thread you complained about was as intelligent as that, I feel that I haven't missed much.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavergis
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 04:28 AM

That isn't the point, Giok. Shambles is right in pointing out the duplicity of the different use of 'we'. If this cavalier attitude can apply to any message, where does it end?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 04:37 AM

Ted's message was deleted. Then reinstated. Whoever thought it offensive enough to delete was clearly acting without any consultation from Joe etc. Irregardless of it's merit giok, the clone was wrong, and proven so by it's reinstatment.

Shambles 1 --- Clone 0.

---

Remember, it really doesn't make sense for Clones to have to check with Joe or Jeff before deleting - if that were the requirement, then there would be no reason at all for Clones to deal with problem posts, and Joe and Jeff would have to be omnipresent.
The requirement is for Clones to consult with Joe and Jeff after a deletion, so that the decision to delete can be reviewed. This deletion was reviewed, and the message in question was undeleted.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gurney
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 06:13 AM

Moderator. "Any substance used to slow down neutrons in nuclear reactors."   Wordweb dictionary.

Different substance, same effect, as Brucie might say when in a benevolent mood.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: harpgirl
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 08:34 AM

Mick:

I find this remark about Roger objectionable and to be a personal attack:

"Because this is all a silly game by a pitiful man who gets his validation from the abuse heaped on him. "

Will you please use your powers as a clonehead and delete it? Thank you.


harpgirl

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 11:00 AM

Some people are starved for attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 11:35 AM

Just as well I'm not a clone then guest!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 12:46 PM

"That isn't the point, Giok. Shambles is right in pointing out the duplicity of the different use of 'we'. If this cavalier attitude can apply to any message, where does it end?"

Anarchy. Chaos. Elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 01:05 PM

Any other choices?
G ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 01:44 PM

Subject: RE: BS: On the cowardly nature of GUEST postings
From: Amos - PM
Date: 04 Jan 04 - 02:07 PM


Dear Lord, protect us from chicanery,
From idle snipers, and inanery
From those who choose to spend their time
Concocting reams of tepid rhyme;
But most of all, from those who would
Pervert a forum meant for good,
And thus corrupt our faint divinity
With foulness cloaked in anonymity!

Amen

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 02:39 PM

Anarchy. Chaos. Elections.

. . . and TELEVISION.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 03:20 PM

And...Reality TV!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 03:21 PM

. . . and OPRAH!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Azizi
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 04:01 PM

And the USA President & Congress!!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 05:26 PM

Your opinion is duly noted, HG.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 06:59 PM

Sorry for the thread drift here, but does anyone know how long ya cook a three-minute egg for?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 07:04 PM

My guess is, brucie, long enough so you know it's done. You don't want an underdone 3 minute egg, right? When I was still a young and inexperienced chimp, I heard it said that the watched pot never boils. I didn't believe it. I went out and got this pot, took it home, and sat down and watched it....for 15 hours! It never boiled. THEN I remembered, you gotta turn the stove on first.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 07:06 PM

Dang! That's it. So, like, ya start timing the egg when ya turn the stove on, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 07:17 PM

Could be. Either that or ya gotta get the element on the stove up to full temperature first and then ya start timin' it. It's tricky. When the eggs come out too hard or too soft, I line 'em up on the windowsill and use 'em for target practice. Or I would...if I hadn't cracked 'em open already. Ain't that a bitch? If there was a way of determinin' whether the egg ain't done right WITHOUT crackin' it open then it would be a lot better all around.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 05 - 07:19 PM

Got that right. I have this pet ostrich, and getting a three-minute egg from one of hern is a real chore.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:04 AM

Try holding up a stopwatch, set to 3 minutes, and a loaded gun, aimed at the ostrich. Look at the ostrich meaningfully as the seconds tick away toward zero. I predict the ostrich will produce the egg on time in 9 out of 10 cases. In the 10th case you fire the gun, makin' sure to just barely miss the ostrich, and the ostrich WILL produce an egg on the spot. This method has never failed for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:08 AM

Should I stand the ostrich above the pot of boiling water?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:20 AM

Yeah.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:16 AM

This is getting VERY COMplicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 10:57 AM

Flamenco Ted

If for your game - you wish your 100th post claims to remain and not be routinely deleted by our anonymous volunteers - the answer is simple. You post to make your claim but you also make a positive contribution to the thread that does add to the sum of human knowledge - on the lines of this one (and others) -

Because this is all a silly game by a pitiful man who gets his validation from the abuse heaped on him.

Such a positive contributions as this are safe from judgement and editing action by our volunteers - mainly because this was posted by one of them - and even when another posters states that they consider this post to be objectional and a personal attack upon another poster - it remains. This objection is simply noted (by the volunteer that made it!!!

So that is the fine example being set by our volunteers - for the rest of us to follow - if you wany your post to remain - you also make an abusive personal attack on someone.......?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:06 AM

Shambles,
         I totally agree with whatever it is you just said. Oh, 300 by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:15 AM

No its not

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:19 AM

Stop it Noreen, or I will have you deleted! Oh, 400 by the way! Leadfingers, eat my shorts!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:20 AM

You two want to be alone?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:36 AM

No its not (Noreen)

Noreen, you are passing your personal judgement on the worth of another poster's contribution. You are on the slippery slope leading directly into the next holocaust:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Wolfgang (:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 11:44 AM

Duct taping someone's mouth is censorship.

Telling that person to shut the f#ck up is opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:49 PM

And a valid contribution in the circumstances Brucie, but then some people apparently don't know about the old adage, 'Quit while you're ahead'
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavergis
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 12:49 PM

No - telling him to shut the f#ck up is an instruction, an order. Certainly no opinion. Unless you usually issue your opinions in the form of orders...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:07 PM

My opinion is that this is all about Shambles getting attention and gratification here that he can't get elsewhere. Fair enough, but could he come up with a new thing to bitch about for the next 7 years? This one is getting tired.

Sorry HG, but that is my opinion. And for what it is worth, it is him that keeps bringing it up. My opinion is that this is an affliction for which there is help.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavergis
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:18 PM

...and my opinion is that Roger simply feels strongly about the way he perceives the moderation of this forum. I have no reason to think otherwise, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 01:25 PM

Ah, since you put it like that, Wolfgang:
I disagree with flamenco ted's mathematical deductions, but I will defend to the death his right to post them.

296 by the way

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 02:43 PM

Xander: It could be an opinion as to what someone should do. It was not directed at or to Roger. It was a general statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 03:32 PM

Roger/Shambles:

If you were to become a clone, exactly what would you do to change things? Please be specific. I have read your many posts that remark on the present volunteers and what they do. What exactly would you do differently?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 03:49 PM

299

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 03:50 PM

Yep--the BIG 300

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 06:52 PM

Roger/Shambles:

If you were to become a clone, exactly what would you do to change things? Please be specific. I have read your many posts that remark on the present volunteers and what they do. What exactly would you do differently?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:21 PM

Refresh

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:28 PM

...and the silence was deafening.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Azizi
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:52 PM

We're still waiting...

Maybe Shambles is writing on other threads.

I've noticed that some of his post are on other subjects. So it's not fair to say that Shambles only has a one track mind.

It's just that so much of his track seems to go in this direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Azizi
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:58 PM

And I let me go on record to say that I also will defend Shambles' right and anyone else's right to post whatever they want as long as what they post does not violate the posting guidelines.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 22 Mar 05 - 08:59 PM

Actually, Azizi, the Roger you see in the other threads is the one that I used to enjoy reading and occasionally jousting with. He is a very good poster when he doesn't get hung up in this stuff, IMO.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:51 AM

Make Shambles a Clonehead

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:02 AM

A Song For Mudcatters

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Azizi
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:34 AM

Roger, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the song that you wrote in 1999 and that you are pointing us to in 2005 was and is posted in a spirit of reconciliation with a theme of   unity inspite of diversity.

A portion of your song is

"We have different views
That's the way it'll always be
It don't matter who's right or wrong
We'll just agree to disagree"

-snip-

My Virgoian detail oriented nature mixed with my Sagittarius see the larger picture nature causes me to ask:
Aren't there times that it does matter who is right and who is wrong? And how is 'right' and 'wrong' determined? Who determines right and wrong? Isn't it usually those in power?

On this discussion forum, with regard to censorship-the topic of this thread-doesn't Max have the power and hasn't he delegated that power to Joe and "Joeclones?"

And with regard to your refrain:

"I look forward to that day
And I hope it won't be long
When we all get to sing the same song"

-snip-

Again, the words sound well meaning, and I'd love to give you the benefit of the doubt that they are meant well...

Yet I have to ask, given the different views that you mentioned in your verse that I cited above, who determines the song that we all get to sing? Sounds to me like that might start a whole 'nuther arguement-excuse me-discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:57 AM

Aren't there times that it does matter who is right and who is wrong? And how is 'right' and 'wrong' determined? Who determines right and wrong? Isn't it usually those in power?

On our forum, I would strongly suggest that from its history, that who is right and who is wrong has never really mattered. That is why this forum was different. However, Joe - in his posts lately - has decided that what he judges to stay or goes - is not a matter of right or wrong.

On this discussion forum, with regard to censorship-the topic of this thread-doesn't Max have the power and hasn't he delegated that power to Joe and "Joeclones?"

As site owner Max to me is the one GOD. The forum is not a demoracy and Max is omnipotent. However I would and do seriously doubt and question if this omnipotence is a quality that can ever be delegated without totally messing-up the rest of us mortals?

For would you say it then follows that - even when stting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right?


As for which song - none of of them are right or wrong so whatever songs we do sing - will be fine. It is the singing together that matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:09 AM

Brucie has spoilt what was otherwise a thought provoking, nay dazzling thread, by posting 300 for no good reason!!! I demand that he be deleted from space and time for ever!!! I am offended, such behaviour is obnoxious!!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:35 AM

Passing judgement upon the worth of another contributor's post - to judge whether to respond - how to respond or to ignore it - is what we all do as part of a discussion here.

Passing judgement upon the worth of another contributor's entire personality based on what they post - is not the same thing. It is futile and counter-productive - as that contributor will no doubt post again (however their worth may be judged by you) - as like the rest of us - they have that right to post - as Max has always extended that invitation to all of the public.

They will then no doubt start to judge the worth of your entire personality in return - and so on.......

In any public place - we will find things that are to our taste and things that are not and we choose to go to areas where things are to our taste. It is the same on our forum. It has been described as a big house with a different party going on in each room.

A tolerant attitude would see us opening the door and moving on - if the party in that room was not to our taste. We would try another door until we found a party that was to our taste. For the minute we close that door and don't re-open it - as far as we are concerned - the party in that room is over.

What appears to have happened and encouraged over time - is that although the house is big enough to accommodate all the parties - some posters seem to insist that the party that is not to their taste and which no one is forcing them to attend - is shut-down.....

As there is no lack of anonymous volunteers prepared to do the shutting-down - there appears to be more and more shutting-down and more and more needless and counter-productive judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:33 AM

The judgement emits on the value of the post of another contributing - with the judge if to answer - how to answer or be unaware of it - what do everything we as an element of a discussion here.

Émettre the judgement on the value of the whole personality of another contributing based on what they announces - is not the same thing. It is futile and against-productive - as this contributing still do not want any post of doubt (however them in value can be judged by you) - as as the remainder of us - they have that to announce well - as the maximum always prolonged this invitation with all the public.

They well then do not want any beginning of doubt to judge the value of your whole personality in the return - and so on.......

In any public place - we will find the things which are with our taste and things which are not and we choose outward journey with the sectors where the things are with our taste. It is similar on our forum. It was described like large house with a different part continuing in each room.

A tolerant attitude would see us opening the door and passing - if the part in this room were not with our taste. We would test another door until we found a part which was with our taste. For the minute we close this door and let us not reopen it more - with regard to us - the part of the fact the part.

What seems to be produced and finished time encouraged - is that although the house is enough large to adapt to all the parts - some posters seems to insist on the fact that the part of which is not with their taste and of which nobody forces them to be occupied - is the stop.....

Because there is no lack of anonymous volunteers ready to make closing-towards bottom - it seems y to have more and more closing-towards bottom and more and more a more useless and against-more productive judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:47 AM

Whenever I read someone (Spaw etc.) arguing seriously with Shambles I think by myself, don't they know by now that he never addresses the points made in such serious posts but only repeats himself as if he could not engage in a real conversation? But once in a while I get tempted to engage in what I consider a completely futile attempt when I see it by others. No, I don't think my attempt is any better (rather the opposite), I just feel it's my turn.

The forum is not a demoracy and Max is omnipotent. However I would and do seriously doubt and question if this omnipotence is a quality that can ever be delegated (Shambles)

I do not at all understand what you mean, Shambles. (1) If you complain about the delegation act as such, then you have to complain to Max, as Jon has often pointed out without getting a reasonable response. (2) If you want to say that omnipotence cannot be delegated you're shooting down a straw-man for delegation of omnipotence was never the matter. It would be new to me, for instance, that the clones (and the original) could shut down the forum. Max has delegated a part of his power, complain to him if you object to that.

Your next paragraph ("for would you say it then follows that...") is an exercise in illogical argumentation. It presupposes nonsense and therefore the 'conclusion' you want us to disagree with (the anonymous volunteers are always right) does not follow at all. And BTW, Max is omnipotent in the sense of being able to shut down this site but from that does not follow he is right whenever he does something. These are two very different concepts.

Passing judgement upon the worth of another contributor's entire personality

You do it implicitely and not explicitely, Shambles, so don't complain if someone does it explicitely. From my point of view, you pass judgement for instance about my ability to understand what I read by reposting with slightly changed words the same arguments and by copying and reposting something everybody has already read themselves. You judge that I need the repetition for getting the correct understanding. I wish you could accept that I for instance read what you read, see what you see and still don't share your opinion. After the first couple of times any further repetition implicitely declares anybody else as dumb. I object to that.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 09:57 AM

"Fascinating," as Spock used to say...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 10:16 AM

Roger/Shambles:

If you were to become a clone, exactly what would you do to change things? Please be specific. I have read your many posts that remark on the present volunteers and what they do. What exactly would you do differently?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:09 PM

Wolfgang

Max is everywhere and sees all.

Discussions do develop. This conversation had moved on to the point made by Azizi about right or wrong and if the power to determine this had been delegated. My point is that the site owners arbitary judgement can be accepted without too much trouble but the delegation of this arbitary judgement to many others - presents more problems. As demonstrated.

Perhaps you could also answer a question?

For would you say it then follows that - even when stting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:25 PM

Perhaps the whole quote should be provided or if not - some indication should be provided that you have 'snipped' it? What i said was -

However I would and do seriously doubt and question if this omnipotence is a quality that can ever be delegated without totally messing-up the rest of us mortals?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:28 PM

Roger,

What you just said doesn't stack up. If you accept Max's arbitrary judgement, as you say, why do you not accept the delegation of such judgement to the volunteers? It is still arbitrary, so what's the difference? Why is one Max's arbitrary judgement better than another's? After all, being omnipotent, he can always retract the delegation - but his (arbitrary) judgement remains that the delegation works.

A sort of "he sees it - and it is good".

Glory be to Max.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:33 PM

Perhaps you could also answer a question? (Shambles)

'Also' is hilarious as you don't, but I can oblige:

No.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:47 PM

Roger/Shambles:

If you were to become a clone, exactly what would you do to change things? Please be specific. I have read your many posts that remark on the present volunteers and what they do. What exactly would you do differently?

If you have read my many posts you will have already seen the answer to your question. Anonymous or known volunteer judges do not solve this problem - as currently structured - they create a different problem. I have no wish to join their ranks - although I am sure they will all be glad to have me....

Whatever our volunteers think - and despite their attempts to shape our forum by their imposed judgement, deltions and closures - it is the public and the example set by them - that will continue to shape our forum. So what is done differently - is up to you and me........

1 Every poster should always be encouraged to accept that this is a public discussion forum where everyone has been invited by Max to contribute on an equal basis.

2 It is not a courtroom or a market where we are encouraged to judge each other's suitability to post.

3 That the example we set - positive or negative - judgemental or accommodating - will be followed.   

How is that for a start?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:48 PM

No, they're not always right, but I agree with their judgement.

On the odd occasion when one of them has 'cracked' (as they are only human, unlike Max...) due to incessant illogical argument being repeated at them, the event has been reflected on and apologised for, if necessary.

Would that all posters were as reflective.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavergis
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:55 PM

Reflective posters are useless, Noreen - you can't read them!

Roger,

there are some (very few) cases where deletion could be allowed, I think, namely when a potentially libellous comment has been made; or when personal information about someone has been disclosed, that could be open to abuse; that would be to keep Max safe from prosecution, as the owner of the forum.

But overall, I agree with you - let everyone post according to their knowledge, temperament and conscience; and let everyone else allow them the freedom to do so. We are big boys and girls and can deal with some abuse; and if we can't, we go somewhere else to play.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM

Be more specific, Shambles:

- People have started several threads with exactly the same lyrics request within minutes. Joe deletes/closes all but one to ensure a better discussion? What would you do?
- Someone's private E-Mail has been posted recently by someone else. Joe has erased it when he saw it. What would you do?
- Spam or links to pornographic sites have been posted. Joe deletes them. What would you do?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM

Xander, you talk rubbish - as Martin Gibbons might have said in more flowery language :-)

Absolute freedom is open to absolute abuse and would destroy this forum. Normal rules of civility should apply, and where they do not, the clones should be allowed to trim offending or time-wasting (or disk space-wasting) texts.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:05 PM

If you accept Max's arbitrary judgement, as you say, why do you not accept the delegation of such judgement to the volunteers? It is still arbitrary, so what's the difference? Why is one Max's arbitrary judgement better than another's?

It is not - but it is less confusing.

Would you not agree that with children - one arbitary authority (right or wrong) will easier to accept and be less confusing to the chilren than more than one - all making different arbitary decisions?

If this parent delgates authority to a nanny etc - would they be wise to subject their children to a whole different range of abitary authority?

I suggest that when you feel that you must delegate on sensitive issues like imposed censorship - it is wise not to set loose a whole load of anonymous individuals all making their own arbitary judgements in the dark and taking action based on this no matter how well-meaning the intention is.

If it must be done - should it not be open, fair and have a clear objective? Is that really the case now?

---

You're absolutely right, Roger, and I'm very glad you said that. We require Clones to do their editing anonymously and to notify Joe or Jeff of their actions for that very reason - because we wish to have control and consistency in our editing. We do not want the Clones to act as individuals, using individual judgment - so we do a 100 percent review of their actions. When there is a need for early action in certain situations, we ask them to act right away - but they are supposed to report what they did, and Jeff and I are able to review all their actions.
Of course, we cannot submit their actions to review by the entire forum - What we delete is material that we do not want seen in a public forum, for one reason or another. Joe, Jeff, and Max conduct the review of the actions of the clones. Jeff and I consult with each other several times a day, and we consult with Max when he's available. But no, we're not about to ask permission of the entire Forum every time we do some sort of editing.
That's not how life works. Ordinarily, people are trusted to do the work they do, and are not required to ask permission from people outside their work structure. The Clones report to Jeff and Joe, and ultimately Max. Jeff and Joe report to Max. That's our structure.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM

...except we are not children, Roger. The argument again does not stack up.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:25 PM

It's amazing. I had no idea the internet was available on the planet Praumoq. Do you get broadband service there Roger or is that not available yet?

Please go and start a forum. I am just dying to know how it all turns out for you.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:32 PM

No, they're not always right, but I agree with their judgement.

Always? Why?

On the odd occasion when one of them has 'cracked' (as they are only human, unlike Max...) due to incessant illogical argument being repeated at them, the event has been reflected on and apologised for, if necessary.

       'That old double standard has me in its spell'

I have yet to be aplogised to for the personal attacks mounted on me and for the incitement for others to do this - from our volunteers. .........All I have seen so far are excuses from them and for them.

I am sorry but we are all human (yes even me). But it is generally accepted that more is expected from those who are placed or volunteer for special positions of trust. Especially those who would feel qualified to judge others. Most of the cracking' you refer to, has come because those who feel qualified to judge us - consider that they are above judgement!

I don't make this generally accepted rule but I doubt if you would so easily excuse a court judge or Government official who 'cracked' and started to abuse their position but still wished to continue in office?

If our forum is to continue - we must all be responsible for our own actions at all times. I don't see that - on a public discussion forum where we are all invited to contribute as equals - there can be one expectation for one and not the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:44 PM

Hang on, Roger - if you advocate the ideal forum with no censorship, as Xander effectively says below, then anyone, clones included, can post what they like; and we are "big boys and girls" to take it. Whther they apologise to some or others, what standards they use, is immaterial - because there is no censorship.

Why grizzle then?

Or is the case that you do in fact want censorship, but from named individuals who state their reasoning/rules they follow?

Reading through your many posts on the subject I find contradictions, and I am not sure which of the two above is the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:46 PM

Really, Shambles, you must tell it Max. He should know that the volunteers abuse their position. Please tell us then what his answer was.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:50 PM

there are some (very few) cases where deletion could be allowed, I think, namely when a potentially libellous comment has been made; or when personal information about someone has been disclosed, that could be open to abuse; that would be to keep Max safe from prosecution, as the owner of the forum.

This is refreshing. Yes of course that is sensible. But ironically as it stands - if the libellious comment was copy pasted to a music thread - it would be permitted to stay - according to Joe' latest version of his rules.

But this brings us to the level of cenorship. If it was limited to the above - there is surely no reason why the decision to delete or not could easily be made by Max alone?

Our volunteers could be then confined to changes requested by posters to their own posts and to bringing any more questionable contribution to Max's attention - for him to decide on possible editing action.

This brings us to Mudcat's version of Catch 22. When criticised - the level of censorship is defended by those who wish to do it - as not very high. But when it is suggested that if it is SO low that Max alone could deal with any imposed deletions - suddenly the level of problems increase to a level that he could not deal with alone.

Perhaps it is time for some folk to be a little honest and admit that they just like imposing their judgement and deleting the contributions of others and that is why they volunteer to do it?

---

Wait! Wait! Logic Alert!!!
No, Roger, we do not encourage or permit the posting of libelous music information.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: PoppaGator
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:56 PM

I can't believe I just wasted x-number of minutes of my life reading through this crap. I've checked into it once or twice over the past couple of months and each time, I have regretted having done so.

Well, the information about three-minute eggs and ostriches was mildly amusing and almost useful. The rest of it is all hot air, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm generally opposed to censorship, and my answer to those who find something objectionable is for them to simply not buy/read/listen/tune-in to whatever it is that they dislike.

Would that I could heed my own advice!

It's discussions like this one that I'd rather not see, and I take responsibility for myself to ignore them. When I have a moment of weakness, like I did today, I blame no one but myself for my loss of resolve.

I've never had a problem beng "censored" here. There have been a few isolated occasions when I've been glad to see some inadvertant posting of mine get deleted (like when I recently started a new thread twice).

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:59 PM

One advantage of living in a world of your own, is that everybody knows you there.
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:05 PM

I'm sure Max could handle all of it alone if he were so inclined to do so and spent all of his time on this website. He doesn't......as you might have noticed.

His good friend Jeff ahs been a major aide to him but Jeff too has a life. I assume that we all have a life Roger, even you and I. So Max, very early on, got Joe to do some of the stufffor him and was obviously happy enough with the results because all these years later, Joe is still here and doing the job Max requested.

Max, Jeff, and Joe enlisted a few others to help out as well. They were not given the same overall powers that the three of them had but could help in the clean-up chores. Two things.........Anything and everything a clone does must be approved. If the clone's decision was out of line, the problem can be and is fixed. They do not act arbitrarily and without final approval.

The other point is that to my knowledge, NO CLONE HAS VOLUNTEERED for the job. They have all been asked to help and agreed. Again, to the best of my knowledge, not a one has volunteered.

If Max finds this acceptable, why can't you? Or does it really matter what Max finds acceptable?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:08 PM

Hang on, Roger - if you advocate the ideal forum with no censorship, as Xander effectively says below, then anyone, clones included, can post what they like; and we are "big boys and girls" to take it. Whther they apologise to some or others, what standards they use, is immaterial - because there is no censorship.

I have more than demonstrated here that I am well able to ignore many personal attacks and resist responding in kind and if I can do it so can others. So much of the justification for all this current censorship is not required

However, I was pointing out - in an answer to another post that stated that apolgies were currently given and on this current set-up -(with anonymous volunteers imposing their judgement upon the cotributions of others) - that I had not received an apology - not that really expected or wished for this.

My objection to these personal attacks and the incitement to others to do this - coming publicly from our volunteers - is the establishment and acceptance of the double standard and the poor example this is setting. When the whole justification for all these anonymous volunteers is to protect us from personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:38 PM

Wolfgang - is this Max's 'volunteer application form? I suspect I will fail......But you did ask me some questions - so I must answer.

- People have started several threads with exactly the same lyrics request within minutes. Joe deletes/closes all but one to ensure a better discussion? What would you do?

First accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that I had no control over the postings of others. Leave them both alone (or link them) so that posters would be aware that such a problem is possible to enable them to avoid it in the future There is time to show the respect of first informing the originators about any proposed action (where this is possible by PMs).

- Someone's private E-Mail has been posted recently by someone else. Joe has erased it when he saw it. What would you do?

Again - I would first accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that I had no control over the postings of others. Inform the originator, explain and ask if they wish me to remove it.

- Spam or links to pornographic sites have been posted. Joe deletes them. What would you do?

Again - I would first accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that I had no control over the postings of others. Ignore them and let them die a natural death.

Imposing your judgement, deleting or closing threads - without the knowledge of the poster - is a BIG DEAL. Where it is possible NOT to do this - it should always be preferred.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:41 PM

Oh you definitely need to start a forum!!! I gotta' see this!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:45 PM

Roger you just defined anarchy.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:51 PM

shambles - though this is a forum that is open to the public it is a privately owned site. Max and/or his designess have the right to delete or edit anything posted here.

it is similar to the right of free speech in the US. Everyone has the right to publicly express their opinions - however - in a privatly owned establishment - even one that caters to the public - the owners and/or management may completly legally prohibit certain language or expel clients/customers/visitors whose speech they do no concur with.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:54 PM

You can start a forum at MSN. Free and you would do the moderation--if any. I too would love to know how it goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 02:55 PM

Roger, I think that if you acted as you suggested in answering those 2 questions below (email/pornography) you would be liable to prosecution as the owner of the site. Certainly in the case of allowing someone's email address to remain there in a post. There are lawyers out there that would tie you in knots over that.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:04 PM

shambles - though this is a forum that is open to the public it is a privately owned site. Max and/or his designess have the right to delete or edit anything posted here.

Yes but would you not agree that with any right - comes responsibilty?

For would you say it then follows that - even when setting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right

Perhaps time for you to answer Wolfgang - I have answered yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:11 PM

Roger, I think that if you acted as you suggested in answering those 2 questions below (email/pornography) you would be liable to prosecution as the owner of the site. Certainly in the case of allowing someone's email address to remain there in a post. There are lawyers out there that would tie you in knots over that.

I did say that I would fail..........

But do we not all first have to accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that we have no control over the postings of others?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:23 PM

Perhaps time for you to answer Wolfgang - I have answered yours. (Shambles)

Huh? Don't you read my posts? Look up my 23 Mar 05 - 12:33 post.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:27 PM

Roger,

Please start a site. I will visit there. Stay here, but start one too. Would love it.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:30 PM

But do we not all first have to accept the limitations of a forum that is open to the public and accept that we have no control over the postings of others?

no - because that is an implied fallacy. "we" as visitors to the site have no control. However - Max and his designees have both the control and the right to delete or edit any content of the site.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:33 PM

Sorry Wolfgang - I did see the post but didn't realise it was in answer to this.

For would you say it then follows that - even when setting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right

So you wouldn't say that this was right. So we agree that it is wrong when they do this then?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:36 PM

Shambles - his reply to your question is that they are not ALWAYS right. (Which is the question you asked)

It is not an either or situation. You are twisting your own words as well as people's responses.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:40 PM

no - because that is an implied fallacy. "we" as visitors to the site have no control. However - Max and his designees have both the control and the right to delete or edit any content of the site.

Do you accept that whatever they may subsequently do - they first have to accept that they have no control over what posters choose to post to a forum - that is open to the public.....?

Unless they write all the posts themselves...

So in fact you could say that as what we post is up to us - we have the control (at least over our own posting)?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 03:44 PM

Unless ever post is previewed, NO they have no control over what gets posted. If I try to make the case that someone does nefarious things to sheep, that post will stand until it is deleted. Jaysus. That ain't rocket science. What the hell point are YOU trying to make?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:03 PM

Did you hear about the man driving the opposite way down a one-way street?

"Gee, there's a lot of people getting it wrong today- and no matter how much I tell them they're wrong they keep shouting back at me- and some of them have abused me!"

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:06 PM

correct - there is no control over what is posted here EXCEPT that once posted it is subject to the whim of Max.*


*note - among other things that Max has whimmed is that he allows certain other people to act as his extensions.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 04:09 PM

Even if you can get every single person to agree that the world is stationary - the truth is "The turtle moves"

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 05:42 PM

Shambles remember the old adage and STOP DIGGING.
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 06:47 PM

From Billy Joel's "Angry Young Man":

"...there's always a place for the angry young man
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand
And he's never been able to learn from mistakes
So he can't understand why his heart always breaks
And his honor is pure and his courage is well
And he's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell
And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man "

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:11 AM

Max, Jeff, and Joe enlisted a few others to help out as well. They were not given the same overall powers that the three of them had but could help in the clean-up chores. Two things.........Anything and everything a clone does must be approved. If the clone's decision was out of line, the problem can be and is fixed. They do not act arbitrarily and without final approval.

Again the comforting 'spin'. Are you asking us to acept that approval to delete - is FIRST subject to approval?

For would you say it then follows that - even when setting the example of not following the guidelines themselves and mounting personal attacks from this responsible and influential position - that Joe, Big Mick, Jeri, Catspaw and the anonymous volunteers are alway right?


Did you hear about the man driving the opposite way down a one-way street? Yes - Wolfgang has already told it. But think about what you look like you are saying here.

That if someone posts a view that is not generally agreed with on a public discussion forum - that it is OK for folk to be encouraged to post simply to abuse them and to tell them to go away?

It is my view that those who wish to be driving where there is only one direction alowed - go out and start one. For that is NOT this site.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:16 AM

Youth Is Wasted On The Young


If the truth be told

Experience is wasted on the old

And youth is wasted on the young



When you have your youth

You have no finer weapon than the truth

And you wield it like a sword

When youth is gone

You need all your strength just to go on

And the truth now cuts you to the bone



If the truth be told,

Experience is wasted on the old

And youth is wasted on the young



Which one is right

The one certain, keen and ready for the fight?

Or the one, unsure, who knows the price to pay

Who are the fools

The ones who want to change all the rules?

Or the ones, who have changed them once before?



If the truth be told,

Experience is wasted on the old

And youth is wasted on the young



Roger Gall 1997

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:33 AM

Nice one, Roger. (By the way, you share the same name with the father of France Gall, who wrote her hit "Poupee de cire, poupee de son" with which she won Eurovision back in my wasted youth).

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:56 AM

*note - among other things that Max has whimmed is that he allows certain other people to act as his extensions.

That word has a sinister sound to it. Do you mean like in hair braids or telephones or like in Max's Angels?

But is there any real need for any of these volunteers to be anonymous when anonymous posting has been such a contentious issue?

Pretending that any form of anonymous posting will be ever thought to be generally favourable is hardly realistic - is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 04:26 AM

Not sure that it should matter much – but am I angry? …...If so who with and why?

I am probably not angry but I am a little sad.

However I do think that there is anger. And this anger and the judgement and intolerance that follows - comes from an unrealistic view of what a public forum can be. The idea that threads and their titles - started by the public looking for information will clearly match the idea that Joe or say Wolfgang considers as the most informative title or not be dublicated – is unrealistic.

That Joe, Wolfgang and others may see our forum as a site for research which needs an efficient means of finding information is a problem - as it is described as a discussion forum and most people never have seen or used our forum in this limited way.

The result of this thinking is that (amongst other things) Joe and his volunteers have slowly taken control over what a thread is called. Probably nothing too sinister an intent - in this but why must this change always be imposed without the originators knowledge?

Could it always be the case in future - that no change is made to a thread title unless the originator is first contacted and agrees to the proposed change?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:42 AM

That if someone posts a view that is not generally agreed with on a public discussion forum - that it is OK for folk to be encouraged to post simply to abuse them and to tell them to go away?

You're doing it again, Roger- (well, I suppose Michael Howard is getting away with doing it over and over again...).

You've been a member here long enough to know this isn't what happens. Most people here give others a chance to have their say, and even debate with them rationally (as many are doing here with you, for heaven's sake!)
The only time (as a rule) people get annoyed here is when arguments are being repeated ad nauseam and the responses aren't listened to or heeded.

Tell me Roger, why, do you think, are you a voice crying in the wilderness here? Don't you think others would be coming in on your side to support you, if all you say is valid?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 07:42 AM

Even if you can get every single person to agree that the world is stationary - the truth is "The turtle moves"

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 08:16 AM

Shambles,

you also have not read my 23 Mar 05 - 09:47 AM post, at least not the part in which I dealt with your question before you started repeating it ad nauseam.

The question as you have asked it is nonsensical, but since you have insisted I have given you a short response.

I was not at all surprised you have made the wrong inference from my response as MMario has pointed out already. Either your debating tactic or your thinking is very muddled.

Basically, you have an interesting point which deserves debate and what you wish for is not obvious nonsense. It is not your opinion as such leading to responses you do not like as you seem to think, it is the way you argue for your ideas:

(1) You're repeating often verbatim the same questions and remarks as if you wouldn't listen at all to people you pretend to be in a conversation with. That either implicitely tells the others that they are dumb for they obviously need information repeated or in my eyes comes close to the behaviour of a kid asking for the umptenth time for something without listening to any response.

(2) You exaggerate the problem, the consequences, the evil-mindedness of your opponents and the responses you get in a way that makes them unrecognisable to others. Your Niemöller quote which you don't seem to understand is but one example.

(3) You try to trick people into false analogies and wrong conclusions. If you say that then..If you accept that then....Don't you think that....In close to none of these examples your premisses are clear. In most instances, my impression is that what you say is not what you want to imply. That makes a response extremely difficult, for if one responds to what you have said (and ignore what you may have meant) you invariably understand it wrong and try the next wrong inference.

(4) Your responses when you are asked are wishy-washy and seldom to the point. From my experience with you in threads and PMs I can say that you rarely do respond at all to points made (without an explicit question) and not always to explicit questions. You restate your point with slightly different words unless you even copy and paste. My impression is: "Is he thinking he's in a conversation or what?" Your response often gives no indication that you have read or understood what someone else has said.

That parody of a debate sometimes gives me the hard to resist urge just to make fun of you for that seems like the only sane way to react. If I had not written this serious post I may have written a parody of Roger with the task of controlling entrance tickets:
"Here's my ticket" "Let us first agree that we are both humans with equal rights who have no..." "Don't you want to see my ticket?" "...other way but unprejudiced communication on an equal basis..." "OK, I'll go in then" "...founded on the bill of rights and the UN convention..."

Sometimes I even think that you damage your cause more than any control and censorship freak could dream of. "Shut up" in this context is a well meant advice of a friendly person to stop you doing more damage to your cause than you have already done. Or at least, give it sometimes a break of two weeks or so. After such a break you may post more reasonable and clearly and people may be more willing to listen to the good sides.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:17 PM

Someone said the world needs people like Roger 'sticking to his guns', etc. Probably true, but find a fuckin' issue that is worthy of this type of approach. Fight world hunger, guns, no guns, abortion on demand, no abortion on demand. On a scale of one to ten, this fucking issue don't rate.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:39 PM

Wolfgang

I agree with whatever it was that you might of just said...

I think that I prefer less wordy and more direct personal attacks - than those like this one - that are dressed-up to sound as if they were not this. And made in the pretence of making some contribution to the debate. Whilst carefully avoiding addressing any of the issues - which remain to be addressed - however you may see my shortcomings in debating them.

If I have inferred the wrong thing from your answer as - I suspect others may have also - perhaps you could clarify it for us?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 12:44 PM

Never try to teach a cat to sing. It's a waste of your time and it irritates the cat.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:29 PM

Shambles it's qutie simple really. The issues over the levels of censorhip, people working anonymously, whether policies are applied evenly, etc. are perhaps worthy of discussion.

The way you go about it and the premis you use to base your arguments on are oten illogical and leads one to think that your interest is not in discussing matters in a straightforward manner but you are using the issues for other reasons.

If on the other hand, rather than discuss the matter, you wish to voice a complaint, you have a source you have yet to try.

As far as I see it Shambles, it's a bit like an equation. If you credit Max on one side you need the credit on the other side to balance it out.

Let's go for: "The posts made by people invited to the forum by Max are being dealt with by Joe Offer who Max appointed and the volunteers also appointed by Max in a system created by Max are causing problems and the system Max created is being abused by the people appointed by Max"

Why can't you say that?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:29 PM

When you have shot the messenger so full of all sorts of arrows that they look like a porcupine and there is no point in joining in and trying to find fresh places to shoot them - you could just leave them to die.......

Or if they still struggle on to deliver their message - you may as well listen to the message and give it some serious thought - and possibly wonder why some many arrows are being fired in order to prevent you from doing this?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 01:46 PM

Roger, Roger... Wolfgang's last post was the friendliest you have had in a long time. Yet you chose to misread and belittle it ("I prefer less wordy and more direct personal attacks - than those like this one "). Well done - you just shat all over Wolfgang's goodwill.

Your vehemence in pursuing your goals is exemplary.
Your ability to describe your objectives clearly is woefully inadequate.
Your ability to recognise friend from foe is - well, nonexistent.

You have some points to make. We think we see them through your wordage, and some even agree and try to rephrase them to help. What do you do? Flail at those who try to help you.

Sod it. You're a lost cause mate, I'm out of here.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:19 PM

No - telling him to shut the f#ck up is an instruction, an order.

Sorry, Xander, no it isn't (normally). For it to be an order pre-supposes that the 'orderer' has the authority to enforce either obedience or punishment. In most cases on Mudcat, this is not true.

I, personally, wish Roger would "shut the f#ck up" on the subject of censorship, because (in the words of Flanders & Swann) he's a thundering thumping boar.* I don't have the authority to enforce that desire, therefore I am expressing an opinion, not giving an order. And since not even Roger has suggested (as far as I remember) that he has been censored on this particular subject, the Clones (who do have the power to 'punish', by deletion at least) obviously haven't given an "instruction" either.

R

*On the subject of censorship, be it noted!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 02:40 PM

Oh alright then - for a bit of peace.

Oooo! Roger! What I could do with that quote!! ;-) Seriously, many of the rest of us would like a "bit of peace" from this particular piece of your monomania. I know I've been quite aggressive at you over this, but it's nothing personal.

Consider this - my impression is that most of the respondents in this thread find your argument to be as unpleasantly insistent as I've quite deliberately been towards you (it shouldn't take 4 repetitions of a question to get an answer out of someone as free with his opinions as you, should it?!). Why should we listen to you, when you won't listen to us? Why is your almost lone opinion worth more than our several & many?

I acknowledge your rather belated answer, but it is so uninformative as to be worthless. It seems to me that you still try to slide away from the question that is being asked of you. You answered the "Have you", but you didn't answer the implicit "why?" You can't answer "why" with "yes".

So?

Regards,

R

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:02 PM

Wolfgang 24 Mar 05 - 08:16 AM

Like EG, I can't see where you think that was a personal attack. Or, rather, I can see where someone of the mindset that you persistently display would view that as a personal attack!

Like EG, I despair of you, I really do. You ask for logical responses, you ask to be persuaded... then you dismiss everything offered, on one pretext or another.

Can you answer the question that so many can't? How do you prove to the paranoid that everyone isn't out to get him? Because, from where I am standing (&, I suspect, EG, Guest Jon, Wolfgang, & many others) you are the paranoid. How do we disturb the internal logic of your arguments? No-one seems to have managed it so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:12 PM

Oh, and BTW, Roger, demanding a quick answer from Wolfgang (which you did at 23 Mar 05 - 03:04 PM) is profoundly hypocritical, considering how long it took you to respond to my very much repeated question, considering how long it took you to answer brucie, & so on & forth.

Did you really stop to consider what you were doing/saying/posting? Because, at the moment, it doesn't look very much like it to me, at the least!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 03:33 PM

Raedwulf, I suppose I still can't work out whether he is paranoid or not.

A simple thread started like.

I'm beginning to feel that the levels of censorship at Mudcat are getting a little to heavy, I wonder whether the policy of having "invisible volunteers" is wise[...]

What do others feel?

Would not trouble me. Shambles goes

Posts made by people invited by Max to our forum are been tampered with by invisible volunteers

Maybe my examples aren't too good but the point I'm trying to make is that Shambles, not directly, but by implication is accusing others for obeying instructions that one can assume ultimately can only come from Max - at least if one gives him credit for control of his own forum.

Quite why Shambles refuses to see this simple logic is beyond me. If if it is not paranoia, it is a thinly veiled attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 06:42 PM

Wolfgang, old cyber friend, you are absolutely correct. My history on this forum will show that I enjoy debate. But I tried the same logic and reason on Roger, and came to the same conclusion. I gave up. He isn't listening, and he loves it up on the cross. In his delusional state, he believes that he is a voice crying in the wilderness.

That is why I adopted a different tact. I just tell him he is an idiot that everyone here sees through. Self fulfilling prophecy and all that. He creates the conditions that make people angry and then puts himself on the cross and complains about the personal attacks. Provides some sort of twisted validation, I guess.

Pathetic, IMO.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:39 PM

I started a thread "Help The Shambles Find A Worthy Cause." A few people contributed suggestions like "End world hunger" before it was declared a personal attack and deleted.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Mar 05 - 10:45 PM

How about these people who obliquely call for the murder of Terry's husband?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 03:26 AM

Max, Jeff, and Joe enlisted a few others to help out as well. They were not given the same overall powers that the three of them had but could help in the clean-up chores. Two things.........Anything and everything a clone does must be approved. If the clone's decision was out of line, the problem can be and is fixed. They do not act arbitrarily and without final approval

Perhaps someone can expain why it is that even when facts are clearly established - like when it is demonstrated in this very thread that volunteers are so empowered and do in fact delete another poster's contribution without any prior or any other approval and without Joe's knowledge – such as Flamenco Ted's posting in this thread – all of this is ignored -in favour of the sport currently being encouraged - of shooting the messenger and calling them names?

The 'spin' of what is supposed to be happening (as opposed to the reality) is perpetuated and supported by personal and abusive attacks (some from these volunteers) and as a result the example is given that making personal attacks and responding in kind to these– is acceptable.

Flamenco Ted's innocuous posting is deleted from this thread by persons still unknown for being judged 'obnoxious'. The result of the example this sets of hypocrisy, inefficiency and double standards – is that the very posts that the majority of posters would consider as 'obnoxious' and the main reason they may support the current example of censorship – are left in place. You can see a current example of where we stand - in a thread running at the same time as this.

What is antisemitism?

Meanwhile under the cloak of protecting us from abusive personal attacks changes are routinely being imposed upon the contributions of posters looking for information – without their permission or knowledge - by anonymous volunteers.

And those that post to support all this clearly increasing and damaging nonsense on our forum – question me and accuse me of being mad?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:21 AM

Yes Shambles, I do question you. Not everyone is saying you are necessarly wrong with some of your observations or that there may not be issues worthy of discussion. The fact is though you have been banging your head against a brick wall for ages and it should be clear to you that you are getting nowhere.

Another fact is that you have yet to try the top man. In this case it happens to be Max but I'd be telling you to go to Joe if it was his site, similarly with Mick, Jeri (if she could be the top man), etc. It is simple normal business procedure. Normal peoople either take the matter higher or let the matter drop.

If you try to take the matter to Max and either find you are ignored or that you are told that Max approves of the current actions of the volunteers, I might understand you trying to do something in the forum as you have nowhere left to go but that is not the case with you. You refuse to try the most sensible option first.

It is for that reason I question your sanity and/or motives.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 04:55 AM

I'm sorry, Shambles. Sometimes, you make sense, but not today. I can't figure out what it is you're saying or what you're accusing us of now.

volunteers are so empowered and do in fact delete another poster's contribution without any prior or any other approval and without Joe's knowledge

As I've explained many times before, we do not require Clones to obtain prior approval of an editorial action. That wouldn't make any sense at all. We want the Clones to act quickly if there is a serious problem post that needs to be dealt with immediately, and then report their action to us. Mostly, the immediate problems that fall under this limited permission are severe personal attacks, racism, and Spam - stuff that's really obvious. If they had to get approval first then it would make more sense to leave all editing to the Mudcat Troika - and Max, Jeff, and I simply don't have time to be here every minute of every day. Ted's deleted 200th post slipped by me because Mudcat was having technical problems at the time, and my edit review tools weren't working. That post should not have been deleted.

Meanwhile under the cloak of protecting us from abusive personal attacks changes are routinely being imposed upon the contributions of posters looking for information – without their permission or knowledge - by anonymous volunteers.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Yes, we do routinely add clarifying words to thread titles, usually leaving the main part of the original title intact - in an attempt to help posters obtain information by making the title of their request more specific. Long experience has taught us that threads titled "Desperately seeking lyrics" get little response. But those thread title changes have nothing whatsoever to do with "abusive personal attacks."

And I have no idea what the anti-Semitism thread has to do with this one, except that Martin Gibson has been acting up there, as he sometimes does. All I can say is that we're working on him.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:35 AM

Another key point you miss, Roger, is that we are not required to refrain from posting our own opinions. The fact that I am a Mudelf does not preclude me from expressing my opinion about you. The fact that I tire of your incessant babbling is simply my opinion. And I am well aware that others whose opinions I care about and whom I like, such as Harpgirl, are not happy with my stance. But, quite frankly, I am tired of your shit. I am tired of saying, "Oh hell, that is just Roger". Were I able to use my so called powers in the way you think I can, I would have banned you, and deleted every posting you make from here forward. I recognize, however, the wisdom in giving you some threads (such as this one) to run your mouth in. Hence I always leave any decisions on your posts to Joe.

Max, whom I have the greatest respect for and consider a close personal friend, apparently thinks there is some value in having you around. Joe, whom is another close friend and whom I respect greatly, apparently is of the opinion that banning you is not a wise move. I will submit to their judgement. The only posts of yours that I delete or edit, are those that are dup's or to fix a link if necessary.

One last comment before I leave this thread. You should thank Joe. He has a much lighter hand on the delete button than some of the rest of us. Your attacks on him are unjustified. Joe is actually a calming influence. He is committed to keeping it clean, by combining threads that are about the same thing, or not allowing certain types of posts. I think he and Jeff have the best handle on Max's philosophy of letting it roll, yet he brings a necessary sense of organization and limited moderation to keep it from descending into a mishmash. You should be thanking him, not attacking him.

And it is still my opinion that you need to see a professional. I thought that years ago (1999)when you made a spectacle of your leaving, and I think it now with your need to bang a drum no one thinks has merit.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:15 PM

So, we have shambles who tirelessly posts to put forward his argument.
And we have the regular little band who tirelessly post to tell shambles he should stop posting.

Why are the regular little band unable to stop themselves opening this thread?
Why do they persist in this game? Do they need to have a person to persecute? It's becoming unsavoury.

Including you, apparently. You seem to keep opening it, and commenting. I guess that means that you are a part of the regular little band, no? If you don't like it, don't open it.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:30 PM

... the sport currently being encouraged - of shooting the messenger ....

1. I don't need a messenger on the issues being raised-- I can see the Forum for myself.
2. Messengers are usually dispatched FROM someone, and TO someone.   Who sent you, Shambles?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:32 PM

Well, Shambles and my ex-wife and George Bush have a lot in common. You can't really carry on a debate with them because they have such a limited grasp of the laws of logic. Still, it's kind of fun to play the game - like fishing in an overstocked pond.

If I had the chance, I'd love to needle Georgie. They'd probably arrest me, though.

I'll stay away from my ex, thankyouverymuch. That one is dangerous. She just got married to a very nice guy.
I wish him luck.

Guess I'd better stick to jousting with Shambles. His huffy, self-righteous lack of logic can be quite entertaining. Sometimes, though, I have to admit that I'm tempted to stick pins in my Shambles doll....

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 05:42 PM

As I've explained many times before, we do not require Clones to obtain prior approval of an editorial action. That wouldn't make any sense at all. We want the Clones to act quickly if there is a serious problem post that needs to be dealt with immediately, and then report their action to us. Mostly, the immediate problems that fall under this limited permission are severe personal attacks, racism, and Spam - stuff that's really obvious. If they had to get approval first then it would make more sense to leave all editing to the Mudcat Troika - and Max, Jeff, and I simply don't have time to be here every minute of every day. Ted's deleted 200th post slipped by me because Mudcat was having technical problems at the time, and my edit review tools weren't working. That post should not have been deleted.

Joe I have lost count of the times over the past few years that I have pointed out an editing action where you later excuse why it was not done the way you say that it is supposed to be done. Usually only after the victim has publicly complained about it………The example in this thread of - why it was not done the way you say that it is supposed to be done - is just the latest. Simply keeping on saying every time that these should not have been deleted – after they have - does not alter the indisputable fact that the 'spin' is not anywhere near the reality. It is not open, fair or have any clear object.

Because these type of things keep on happening - all I have ever asked for is a review of why these mistakes are repeated and why they keep being excused -so they can stop? In the context of personal attacks etc – I can see no better examples than in the 'What is antisemitism thread' but these – the very things that all of this censorship is supposed to be about and which many support it for – are not even touched by you or your volunteers…. Why?

But those thread title changes have nothing whatsoever to do with "abusive personal attacks."

No they don't. So why can the originators of these request posts be first informed of any suggested changes? Why must these increasing changes be imposed by you and your anonymous volunteers - without the poster's knowledge?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:37 PM

Another key point you miss, Roger, is that we are not required to refrain from posting our own opinions. The fact that I am a Mudelf does not preclude me from expressing my opinion about you. The fact that I tire of your incessant babbling is simply my opinion. And I am well aware that others whose opinions I care about and whom I like, such as Harpgirl, are not happy with my stance. But, quite frankly, I am tired of your shit. I am tired of saying, "Oh hell, that is just Roger". Were I able to use my so called powers in the way you think I can, I would have banned you, and deleted every posting you make from here forward. I recognize, however, the wisdom in giving you some threads (such as this one) to run your mouth in. Hence I always leave any decisions on your posts to Joe.

I would like to state to the other volunteers (especially the anonymous ones) that anything I say here should not be taken as a personal criticism of you. I am sure that most of are responsible and well-intentioned and would not primarily see their role as sitting in judgement upon certain other posters, informing them of what they will allow or feel that it was acceptable to mount abusive personal attacks upon them and incite others to do this and feel that setting an example of a double-standard was a good one.

I would think that any armed cop who was tempted to be 'trigger-happy would be at least partially inhibited by the stack of paper-work that has to filled-in everytime they discharge their weapon. Perhaps a similar process here - where every imposed editing action required a written report to be submitted to Max for his approval - may have the same effect and result in less imposed judgement and a more proportiate approach?

These officers, judges and others in the type of postion that require them to be seen to be impartial - (if they take them seriously and one hopes they would not be employed for too long if they did not) - are very careful about expressing their personal opinions. Most take great care to keep these very clearly separate from their job. This is wise - For they know they could lay themselves open to accusations of prejudice and unfair treatment in the course of their duties - accusations that they may find very difficult to refute.

In cases where those in these type of jobs or roles were to be seen to have abused their position - they would be dismissed or be expected to resign (or in some professions - maybe even promoted).

Is it really not possible for any editing comments to be objective and factual and completely free of personal judgements and opinions made about other posters? This would also protect our volunteers from any accusations of unfair treatment and of abusing their responsible position of trust?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 06:59 PM

There was talk of possible legal action and libel etc. Perhaps the legally-minded among us could advise?

I am accused (amongst other things) of not being very good on this logic business - but do I follow correctly - the logic of the argument being proposed?

That - as they are appointed by Max - whatever our volunteers say or do is approved by Max and they are in effect - acting and speaking for Max?

Does it also follow that - if one of them calls another poster a name or worse - that this is also speaking and acting for Max and would be considered as official Mudcat Editorial Policy?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 07:18 PM

have we beaten this horse to death?

are rhetorical and hypothetical questions getting wearysome?

Does anyone care?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 07:36 PM

Roger, I mean this sincerely and with no disrespect. I am even worried when I say to you that whatever is wrong with you is no small thing.

Your questions have been answered hundreds of times by people empowered to do so and yet when confronted with the same explanation but put forth in a different way in the forlorn hope that you might somehow understand, you see them only as "spin." You have this deeply held set of beliefs that you refuse to challenge in the face of all evidence to their contrary. Discussion with you has become impossible as you aren't even willing to accept evidence as evidence unless it can be grossly misconstrued to fit with your hypothesis.

I have a few questions for you that are simple and straightforward. If Max were to post and say, "It's fine the way it is Roger. Now drop it."..........Would you drop it?

Would you accept things as they are if Max said they are fine as they are as far as he is concerned?

OR.......

Would you carry on this rhetoric even with the certain and factual knowledge that whatever you said would make no difference?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 10:54 PM

Joe I have lost count of the times over the past few years that I have pointed out an editing action where you later excuse why it was not done the way you say that it is supposed to be done. Usually only after the victim has publicly complained about it………The example in this thread of - why it was not done the way you say that it is supposed to be done - is just the latest. Simply keeping on saying every time that these should not have been deleted – after they have - does not alter the indisputable fact that the 'spin' is not anywhere near the reality. It is not open, fair or have any clear object.

You're right, Roger. You DO complain time and time again. You can take a single incident and complain about it over and over again for two years. I answer it once, but you complain when I don't answer the same question about the same incident, each of the subsequent 937 times. How many times do you copy-paste the same statement from me and complain about it, over and over again? I've counted a few of your copy-pastes, and I've seen more than ten repeats of some of them.

When you come up with new stuff, that's one thing.
But your constant repetition is wearying.

Aren't you aware of how often you repeat yourself?
-Joe Offer-



(937 is hyperbole used for rhetorical purposes - but Shambles wouldn't understand that.)(and Ted, this is the 391st post in this thread)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: michaelr
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 12:34 AM

Given Martin Gibson's recent sewage spewage, along with Shambles' rambles, I do find myself wishing Mudcat was a moderated forum like most --   where no one would waste time, energy and bandwidth on this bilge because it would never see the light of day... er, light of cathode ray tube.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:02 AM

I have a few questions for you that are simple and straightforward. If Max were to post and say, "It's fine the way it is Roger. Now drop it."..........Would you drop it?
Catspaw

are rhetorical and hypothetical questions getting wearysome?
Bill D

But those thread title changes have nothing whatsoever to do with "abusive personal attacks."
Joe Offer

No they don't. So why can the originators of these request posts be first informed of any suggested changes? Why must these increasing changes be imposed by you and your anonymous volunteers - without the poster's knowledge?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 04:20 AM

You know, Roger, usually I do inform thread originators, to make sure they can find the thread - but I don't ask their permission to change a thread name. If I can't find them, then I can't inform them. Remember also that we try to clarify thread titles by adding to them, leaving the original title as part of the new title.

Once upon a time, we'd get lots of song requests with generic titles, titles that couldn't be differentiated from other titles because they were all the same - "lyrics request," or "lyrics required," or "desparately seeking lyrics" (and they always spelled "desperately" incorrectly). Then we'd get all sorts of helpful Mudcatters posting to the thread, preaching that the people needed to start a new thread with a specific title. We'd also get people requesting many unrelated songs in the same thread, and those requests would get lost. A simple thread title change solves those problems.

So, Jeff created a utility that allows us to change thread titles, and we use it. With almost 78,000 threads, it's important that thread titles describe the contents of the thread. It's simply a process of indexing Mudcat threads so that it will be easier for people to use them. The philosophy is that the needs of the general community are more important the the wishes of the thread originator - although we do try to take the thread originator's intentions into consideration.

Now, I'm sure that there are people who look on a thread as their platform for free speech, their personal Hyde Park for presenting their ideas. That's a valid point way of doing things, but that's not how things have been here at Mudcat. Thread originators have never had control of threads, and threads have always been the result of a community effort.

Yes, there have been some people who have complained about a thread title change here and there, but the number of individuals who have complained has been very small. In fact, I imagine that 98.3 percent of the complaints have all come from the same individual, and I think we all know who that individual is.

-Joe Offer-
394

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 05:10 AM

I think Bill tires of your questions as well as mine. I tire of them too. But every factual question I can think of that you have asked over the past several years has been answered 97 ways from sideways in an effort to make it clear to you. You refuse to accept ANY answer that does not match your personal vision.

It matters not where it comes from at all. Any answer that does not fit is twisted into something sinister by you and then becomes yet another complaint. I simply want to know if there is any point that you will say, "Well, that's it. I made my case and stuck to my guns but now it's over."

I would think that a definitive answer from Max would be that point. Here's a song with some verses that are germane to the situation (italics are mine):

*************************************************************
Move On Down the Line

I got to move on, down the line
What's yours is yours, what's mine is mine
There's nothing left, but the lying
Move on down the line

This train we're riding, has reached the end
And it's no good to pretend
We were walking, hand in hand
Into some Promised Land

So long, I won't forget you
But, I never was 'gonna' let you
Tie me up and settle me down
Nothing's lost, nothing's found

The story ends, it's had it's time
And if you look, I'll think you'll find
The bottle's empty, we drunk it dry
There's no need to cry

This dog is happy, it's had it's day
There's really nothing more to say
No need to cut up, don't howl the moon
We don't sing the same tune

No need to tell me, I'm no good
I just thought, you understood
Just like the wind, needs to blow
I've 'gotta' go
*************************************************************

Interesting song.........Unlike the guy in the song, I see no need for you to go, but when do YOU reach the point of saying that we just don't sing the same tune?   Anything I have to say you won't accept. That is true of Joe and virtually everyone else as well. This leaves only Max as best as I can tell........That being the case, I don't find it rhetorical at all to ask you if an answer from him would end it for you or not. So on that basis, I ask again:

Would you accept things as they are if Max said they are fine as they are as far as he is concerned?

OR.......

Would you carry on this rhetoric even with the certain and factual knowledge that whatever you said would make no difference?

Spaw
Oh yeah.....I forgot to attribute the lyrics above to the writer. Seems it was written by some guy named Roger Gall........

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: harpgirl
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 05:48 AM

Congratulations Roger! Your persistence has elicited many explanations
for the reasons for clonehead activities on mudcat. I see Joe has explained his reason for thread title changes. Interesting! (He may have said it before but this is the first time I've groked it.)

If it weren't for your "97 different ways of asking" we might still be kept in the dark about many things with regard to "censorship" on mudcat. Why do the verbal abusers on this thread not see that Roger's persistence has clarified many issues? Does anyone see also that the continuing dialogue helps to put the issue out in the open, debate it, keep the cloneheads thinking about why they do things, and is thus dialectical?

Oh, no. The boneheads, oops I mean cloneheads just keep telling you to shut up! The irony of this thread is astounding and magical! Go Roger!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 06:17 AM

Harpgirl. If you were unsure on why thread titles were changed, one straight simple question "Could someone please explain why thread titles are changed?" would have got you a straight answer.

Shambles is not asking straight questions but is making accusations and forcing people to defend themselves repeatedly.

If you want to encourage shambles' fantasy world where Max's dream is being wrecked by Joe and his evil empire, fair enough but don't pretend he's bringing out answers you couldn't have got by much simpler means.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:22 AM

Well said, Jon. It is a matter of asking. It is also a matter of accepting the answer. This place is what it is. Accept that and move on with enjoying it.

Harpie, if I thought there was some good coming from this, I would say so. You seem to be endorsing this man's assertion that there is something sinister going on here. There is not, and it seems to me that is what you should be endorsing. JMO.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jaze
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:06 AM

Well, gee, now I've just found out some of you were invited by Max. Now I really feel left out!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jaze
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:18 AM

400! Never did that before.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Scaramouche
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:48 AM

" shambles - though this is a forum that is open to the public it is a privately owned site. Max and/or his designess have the right to delete or edit anything posted here.

Yes but would you not agree that with any right - comes responsibilty? "

Yeah and part of that responsibility, Shambles, is to deal with things like porn postings, spam and public postings of email addresses.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:54 AM

If anybody thinks they're having an honest9discussion9about Mudcat editing policies, <you're<in the wrong thread.<.This9one is for9playing head games designed by Shambles.

It's a whole lot9less frustrating when you<realize you're<not making any progress9in9the9surface9level of communication9because that's just for show. Shambles'9intentions seem9to9be9to9see 9how many<hoops he can get others<to jump through while avoiding jumping through any himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 10:40 AM

I thought we were overdue for a Jeri contribution - to refesh the thread. If this is is a game - it is one that you and many others are willing to play. But this is a relevant subject for discussion - why is it that so many post to say that they do not think it should be? I suspect if we were all saying the same things on censorship here - it would be thought to be a suitable subject for 'debate'.

Now, I'm sure that there are people who look on a thread as their platform for free speech, their personal Hyde Park for presenting their ideas. That's a valid point way of doing things, but that's not how things have been here at Mudcat. Thread originators have never had control of threads, and threads have always been the result of a community effort.

Now if this had NOT been the case here on the part of Max's accommodating forum – I, and I suspect many other long-term contributors would not have been attracted and contributed here for so long.

There were and are many places where pedantic judgements and tedious arguments about what was and was not 'on topic' and where control seemed to be the main object - The Mudcat Forum was never as ordinary as this and should never be allowed to be turned into one. Those that prefer this sort of place – should perhaps go there and leave the rest of us in peace?

This re-writing of history - where some animals are now more equal than others and feel qualified to sit in judgement and impose this judgement upon others - without their knowledge or permission - demonstrates exactly why I feel that credit for the forum that we have ALL created - is in danger of being stolen from us all - by a few.

Thread originators and posters generally have always been respected and should continue to be shown a respect that is not now the case. I agree that threads have always been the result of a community effort - they have been the result of contributions invited by Max. They have NEVER been and NEVER should be the result of deletions, closures, tinkering and general personal judgements of the the poster's worth - made by a selected and anonymous) few.   

You seem to be endorsing this man's assertion that there is something sinister going on here. There is not, and it seems to me that is what you should be endorsing. JMO.

I will leave others to judge from the evidence whether something sinister is going on. I have not said that there is. But if there is NOT anything sinister going on - an open approach - (with no secrets, threats and anonymous volunteers and the very minimum of imposed censorship) - a lack of sinister intentions will always be very clear.

It looks as if you have something to hide and protect if you choose to do this by adopting divisive and less than positive methods to prevent open debate. Folk may then tend to believe that there is something sinister going on.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 01:24 PM

Max's stated view is that his role on the forum is only to facilitate. The role of anyone who is asked to assist in this – must surely be to also facilitate and enable the public's contributions – and not to sit in judgement upon the worth of them?

It makes little sense to judge and sort posters invited to a public forum - into what a volunteer may consider to be good or bad ones - for every contribution posted from the public – invited by Max to the public -is equally valid. But it is clear that this counter-productive practice IS at least what some of our volunteers presume their privileged role to require of them.

The result of all this being posted publicly – is that all contributors follow this example. Posters in turn would appear to think that the whole purpose of posting to the forum now - is to sit in judgement of the worth of their fellow posters and to post abusive personal attacks and respond in kind to others (rather than simply ignoring them).

Is it likely to ever prevent abusive personal attacks – when those in responsible positions – set the example of the double-standard? Of judging the worth of their fellow posters whilst themselves indulging in abusive personal attacks and inciting others to also indulge in this and respond in kind to these abusive personal attacks? A practice that is well demonstrated (and defended) in this thread.

All that retrospective imposed editing action can effect - is what is removed or closed. It has no effect on preventing abusive personal attacks from first being posted. So if there is a genuine wish to prevent what most posters say they object to - some other and more imaginative methods MUST be found.

The most obvious and simple - but still seemingly impossible for some of our volunteers to manage - is to first set an example - to what they consider - to be lesser posters. One of:

NOT insisting on posting only to judge the worth of their fellow posters (good or bad).

NOT insisting on mounting abusive personal attacks – inciting other posters to do this or ever responding in kind or at all – to any obvious provocation.

I and many other second-class 'lesser' posters – do not have the problems that some of our privileged volunteers have and can manage perfectly well to post and not respond in kind to obvious provocation. If they are to remain a permanent feature - is it really too much to expect our volunteers to set the example of also doing this. If it is – are these really the right people to sit in judgement upon the worth of the rest of us?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 01:28 PM

Roger, in 1999 you pitched a fit and in an attempt to garner attention, you publicly announced you were leaving. Were your motives pure, you would have stayed gone. At one point, I even invited you back. I regret that now. Your motives are not pure, you are an attention grabbing troll, nothing more. Further, I believe you need help. ANYONE who cannot see that is blind, and anyone who encourages it when they know better, ought be ashamed. If they are not, I am of the opinion that they have an agenda just as you do. I am through dancing your dance. Keep playing in the sandbox, and I hope the rest of you don't mind it when you step in the occasional catshit.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 02:02 PM

Shambles, a message is (or can be) a personal Hyde Park for anybody who wants to express an opinion. But just like in Hyde Park, you control only your own message - you don't control the entire park.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 02:39 PM

While we're on the subject, can anyone define the term "folk music" for me?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:41 PM

As Shambles likes quoting, I've done a bit of research and will supply an extract from one quote and another full quote.

Subject: I'm against censorship
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Jul 99 - 05:51 PM

Well, I suppose that there are messages that those of us with "delete" buttons delete as a matter of course.
Duplicate messages - that's obvious

"Get Rich Quick" and other Spam messages that have nothing to do with music - obvious

Messages that just take up space, like the one from the guy who filled a whole page with just his name - obvious
I don't think that's censorship - it's just tidying up. The only other messages I have deleted are the ones that were direct, personal attacks on Mudcatters, and I think I have deleted only two of those in the last couple of years.
[snip]
Max gave a few of us "edit" buttons and told us to use them with good judgment. I think we've tried to do that, perhaps erring on the side of freedom of discussion, but I think that's good.
[...]

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 02:22 PM

Drop it, Shambles. Apparently, some sort of misdirected censorship did happen once, and the perpetrator was aparently a JoeClone® in training. It happened one time, and probably won't happen again. OK?
-Joe Offer-

Now the first and most obvious point is that Shambles has been banging on about this for rather a long time.

The second point is rather less obvious. The "no rules" post was made in Oct 99, yet in July 99 it is quite clear that there were unknown volunteers and some editing work was carried out, even personal had been deleted.

I don't think Max's statement was ever meant to be taken the way shambes does. I think his meaning was intended to be taken as "we try to be as free and easy as humanly possible" rather that the literal "do anything you like regardless..." interpretation shambles puts on it.

Whatever, the evidence supporting the state of the forum pre Max's statment does seem to me to invalidate Shambles usage of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 03:43 PM

Little Hawk, I would, but I'd refresh the thread and it might bother Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 05:30 PM

Gee, Jon, things were different back then, though...
Did I really say I had deleted two personal attacks in two years?

Now I'm lucky if I can get by deleting just two attacks in two days. Back in 1999, nobody ever called anybody a "cunt." We didn't have to deal with those things back then.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 06:43 PM

Yep Joe, I can see some things have changed. My point really was that the power existed and action would be taken if needed back then. Just in case I was missunderstood, I didn't mean to imply that you haven't been forced to move with the times...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 07:02 PM

Max himself shut down a couple of threads, if I recall correctly. In The Olden Times, I believe that was done with a bit of code that disappeared the 'Reply to Thread' window and the 'This Thread is Closed' thing was developed and implemented later.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 07:06 PM

Well, I had to look at your messsage twice, Jon, but I did understand you correctly. Still, it was a shock to remember that oncve upon a time, I had to delete only two personal attacks in two years.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:08 PM

Ya' know Joe, I keep thinking I'd like to invite RacePace, ZapIt, CornerMarshall, and a few others who are mods at a racing forum where I hang out, to join me here for a field trip. We'd have to have El Swanno standing by because there would likely be a stroke or heart attack or two. At the very least a lot of hyperventilation.

Give them a few minutes and any number of posters would be zapped into the ether. Boatloads of individual posts would be gone and threads would disappear right and left including this one. They'd be camped out on these pages and any time someone even looked like they might be attacking.....ZAP. No explanations will be given and only rarely will they bother with one. Shambles would be completely beside himself, but no one would know!

Truthfully, if you handle it right, you can discuss their decisions privately and they will in fact change their minds......but you need to know that attacking them or demanding anything of that sort from the mods there will simply be zapped. Truth is that it's a real friendly place with lots of fun and intelligent people who understand that you post on these things as a privilege, not a right. The rules are clear regarding attacks, profanity, porn, and the like.......and the place runs very smoothly. I have not seen any instance where they have killed off discussions or conversations that were being held within the rather simple rules. I don't see where either good discussions or the community atmosphere is affected for the worse at all. Seriously it's a whole lot better than the place where the 'Cat seems to be devolving.

Now this bunch around here may think all that harsh, but for those who do frequent other boards they know that you allow far more, and I mean faaarrr more than is the general rule. Might be time to get a bit more aggressive though................Just a thought.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:43 PM

Anyone ever consider that these folks, like Sham and martin gibson, are trying to force more moderation? Just a thought. Beyond being psycho's it's the only thing that makes sense to me.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,the shrink
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:47 PM

In the case of Martin, that is exactly what I have presented as the purpose of his manner. I believe to someone as himself who lacks power in real life, to be moderated on an internet forum IS power.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 08:57 PM

yep, shrink, I think that is it.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:24 PM

LOL Mick.........Hell Bro, could be anything! I think in Shambles case he has been at this for so long that he really is off the deep end mentally. Reminds me a bit of Lenny Bruce at the end of his life where he was so occupied with his court cases he could think of nothing else. His entire act was him reading court transcripts. Or maybe Roger has been wearing the wrong size underwear all these years.

The other guy isn't worth the time of day. He's a decent enough troll but he follows the same pattern ad infinitum: He makes a thinly veiled attack on someone and they respond. He then responds with far worse stuff, saying he was attacked. If you do the same thing to him, he of course claims your thinly veiled first strike was a major attack on him. His first strikes are never major attacks on you. I tried him both ways after watching him for awhile and it's pretty much the pattern. Also, should someone fail to respond after keeping this up for awhile, he does an Anon Guest posting to keep it going. Pretty basic stuff but it keeps working because for some reason it seems a lot of 'Catters either can't shut up or actually care what this disembodied voice has to say. If everyone would just let it drop.......but that isn't likely and he knows that as well. It would be easy enough to just zap him out on every questionable post. Most trolls weary of that after awhile too.

Roger on the other hand.........LOL, well there is a beautiful room awaiting him at the NYCFTTS anytime he wants!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:30 PM

I'm glad to hear the NYCFTTS facilities are still open. I'd been wondering about that. I've got 15 people here hanging around the WSSBA who swear that they ARE William Shatner, and frankly, I'm getting tired of it. Most of them don't even look like him.

Talk about yer terminally screwed people...

There are also several Canadian politicians who could benefit from a short stay.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:34 PM

Yep, you're right Spaw. I am just getting to the point where the moderation you speak of sounds better and better. I would just hate to lose the freshness that spawned NYCFTTS, Reg and the boys, LFPS,Koko, the spud, ..... all of that. I guess if is far past too late though.

I hear you, maybe I will adopt a bit of that philo.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:52 PM

The problem here Mick is that so many of do care so much for this place and also know from history that getting 100% compliance to shunning is about impossible here. So we long for the "benevolent dictator" to right the problem. What is important to understand, at least to me, is that on the net fairness is not a requirememnt.

On the other board I am speaking of, Spaw is still pretty much Spaw. I have a rep their as well and I get by with a lot that others don't....and that's simply because the mods know there is nothing mean-spirited about my posts. I still get zapped occasionally and have to explain a joke to RacePace now and then. The persona put forward by MG wouldn't last a day. WE've had some and they kept coming back but the mods were equally relentless and the trolls lose everytime. I could sometimes say the same things and not even be noticed. It isn't fair of course, but it is the reality and it works.

Spaw

S

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:52 PM

Well, here's a thought. The forum has already been divided into an upper music section and a lower BS section. Why not subdivide it one level further, as follows:

1. Music - (the Etherial Realm of True Purity)

2. BS section - (for stuff that's somewhat less pure)

3. Truly Offensive BS section - (for stuff that's completely beyond the pale!)

Any post in which a person said something completely beyond the pale (whatever that is deemed to be) would be summarily dumped into the TOBS section as its own TOBS thread, with its own TOBS title, which would be the title of the thread it dared to first appear in with "TOBS-" added at the front.

Example: TOBS - What is the definition of Folk Music?

The TOBS section would necessarily be so far down the page that it would require considerable motivation just to scroll down there. This would be discouraging to the wretched souls who devise truly offensive posts, as they would more and more begin to feel that they had been consigned to some sort of purgatorial realm of terminal damnation.

If a particular poster caused more than 666 posts a year that were truly offensive, then a subroutine could simply dump all his future posts in the TOBS section from then on. This would amount to excommunication in Mudcat terms. I'm guessing that "Guest" would be there in jig time, probably talking to himself most of the time. Kind of like a man yelling at his own echo.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:56 PM

ROTFLMAO.......Gawd Hawk.....I love it!!! In other words, Max needs to provide a place for every wacko, nabob, bottom dwelling slug on the net so they can have their big chance to have a forum of their own!

The idea cracks me up but I think you have a pretty hard sell there(:<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 09:57 PM

What you are describing, Spaw (that you get away with more than some do on that forum) is the reality in any group of people who have gotten to know each other over a period of time. Old friends get more benefit of the doubt than strangers do. Makes perfect sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 10:58 PM

No, put TOBS on the server that only runs some of the time-- the one for which there is not even a back door entry. Give it a separate URL altogether, and no link from here to there. You'd have to Google to find it. The color scheme also-- have to be totally offensive to the eye, like blinking black backgrounds, small yellow type for thread names and posts, etc. Require registration to post there, but make every post appear as being from a nameless Guest. Or just assign random numbers-- "Banished #00002," etc. Or use the IP number. :~)

No PM function.

Eliminate the blickifier there, and all other Mudcat conveniences too. Limit the characters per post, too, to something short and pithy. Install programming that would make a hash out of anything composed in a WP and then pasted as small bits. But no censoring, of any sort whatsoever.

The fix Mudcat Normal Zone so that links to the Hell site cannot be made or posted.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 11:00 PM

PS, Hell is where to put the POP-UPs, and banner ads, and all that CRAP! People wanna post that shit, let them pay good money (via revenues generated) and fund the rest of Mud-damn-Cat! :~)

It's always simple to harness an addiction. Make it pay!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 11:07 PM

Oh! Nasty! Imagine the misery in which the banished of Mudcat would wallow there in the TOBS section, like prisoners in some foul dungeon, longing for a scrap of bread or a beam of sunlight...

No point limiting the characters per post, though. Let 'em go on and on indefinitely, I say. Excessively long posts by obsessive people would be part of the misery. Allow NO paragraph breaks! Have jOhn from Hull design a subroutine to revamp ALL the spelling so that it looks like his.

Another thing that could be done for the regular BS section would be an automatic subroutine that alters all deeply offensive words into harmless words such as "tiddly", "ronson", and "macaroon".

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 05 - 11:37 PM

I regret my own recent actions- mind you, I don't regret the things I said to the person to whom I said them- but I regret not leaving the problem to Mudcat, especially to Joe Offer. You da guys that have to deal with da problem- and I am capable of leaving it in your hands. I'll try to do so from now on.

Ebbiewhoispenitent

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:40 AM

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 02:22 PM

Drop it, Shambles. Apparently, some sort of misdirected censorship did happen once, and the perpetrator was aparently a JoeClone® in training. It happened one time, and probably won't happen again. OK?
-Joe Offer-

But it did happen again. So I didn't drop it. For it happened again and again it still does as it did – even in this thread. So do the same excuses given and so do the personal attacks that the whole editing edifice is supposed to be protecting us all from and which many good folk support because they believe the 'spin'.

The reality – as I have demonstrated – is somewhat different – the people mainly affected by current censorship – are ordinary posters. My circumstances have never been the issue for me but my postings are what I know most about. The 'spin' will tell you that I have never been the victim of any censorship here (by rather narrowly defining this as by terms such as 'tidying-up'). I do speak from the rather unique position of a thread originator – whose thread has been closed by Joe Offer TWICE……..Unfair treatment and over-zealous abuse of this position – I will leave it for you to decide

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=12450&messages=78

The explanation for this was not because the thread contained personal attacks on me or anyone – as it was folk saying nice things. But this was considered serious enough to cause this thread to be closed twice!

Can closed threads be re-opened

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:32 AM

Shambles. One portion of my post you did not quote was Joe Offer saying.

"Max gave a few of us "edit" buttons and told us to use them with good judgment."

Does that not tell you anything? Let's see if we can try a couple of questions based on Joe's statement. I'll give you a clue. The answers only need one 3 letter word.

1. Who created the situation where some members have more power than others that you complain about so often (something I have no objection to, on the contary I think a few people are needed to help out)?

2. If rather than using good judgment, they are abusing their privelage, who do you think you should inform?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 06:06 AM

The answer has two letters not three.

Us.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:04 AM

Shambles, a message is (or can be) a personal Hyde Park for anybody who wants to express an opinion. But just like in Hyde Park, you control only your own message - you don't control the entire park.

-Joe Offer-

Perhaps it may slowly dawn on those that do wish it - that no one else IS wanting to take control of the whole park. It would appear that whoever it is that wishes to control every aspect of the whole park and entry to it - and is under the impression that they now do control it – is not even content with this and now does not wish posters to even control their own messages.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=78706

You will see that the thread title that I had chosen for my music related (parody) thread was changed without my knowledge and against my wishes. That I was then given the ultimatum of leaving the thread with the imposed title change or of having it changed back and this obvious attempt at a thread song – being sent to the BS (non –music) section. This was contained in a (brown) editing comment – where the personal opinion was expressed by Joe Offer - that all Song Challenge threads should be demoted to the BS non-music section…….

I will leave you judge what is happening here and where it is written that as a matter of routine that volunteers can threaten to send threads that are clearly music related – to the non-music section and why?

The view that Song Challenges (containing mainly original material) may not be worthy of a place on the music related section is perhaps a valid opinion. It is perhaps not the sort of opinion to express in an editing comment - if the volunteer expects their imposed editing judgement to ever be generally accepted as being objective. Such actions leave little room for defence - if or when accused of unfair treatment or of abusing their position.

Perhaps in future (and if these editing comments continue to take place) - and in order to prevent confusion - no personal opinions should appear in editing comments and these should be kept objective and factual?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:32 AM

Thanks for making me laugh out loud.

The problem here Mick is that so many of do care so much for this place and also know from history that getting 100% compliance to shunning is about impossible here.

The only things that we know for sure are impossible - are the things we make no attempt at.

If we are talking about not responding in kind or at all to obvious provocation - whatever percentage level that could be achieved (by posters always setting this example) would always be better that doing nothing and stating that making any attempt is futile.

It would also help and pay a big compliment to the many posters who do manage to easily do what you appear to find impossible. Unless of course for some reason you do not really wish to even make the attempt - but wish to continue to indulge in mounting personal attacks and respond in kind to them and to set this example?

So we long for the "benevolent dictator" to right the problem.

If we do - we will be waiting a long time. But of course - stating this cop-out always saves the resonsibility of actually doing anything positive yourself.

What is important to understand, at least to me, is that on the net fairness is not a requirememnt.

is this not a double-standard - as you would appear to think that being fair to our volunteers - is a requirement? This of course works both ways. As in any form of respectable policing anywhere - being open, fair and having a clear objective is always a requirment - except perhaps in police state......

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:34 AM

At this point, Pip would say "anobeithiol"

Welsh adj: despairing, hopeless, desperate, forlorn

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 07:43 AM

Yep, Jon. There is no help available to the fool who will not be helped.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 08:23 AM

Again I would ask, Shambles-- when you use the word "we"-- who is the "we" who sends you as messenger?

And who is "we" on any given day and hour?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 10:51 AM

Yeah, iut appears that Easter has really rejuvenated the boy doesn't it? But Pip has it right and if I knew how to pronounce that word, I'd be using it all the time!

I'd be happy to parse your postings all to hell and break down each thing, like your incorrect usage of the word volunteer or the fact that if you cannot see that your 2 letter answer is wrong and Jon's 3 letter answer is right, or a hundred other things........but there is no point.

You need to address all your problems to Max. Everyone here has answered you repeatedly and you say they are wrong or it is spin because it doesn't fit your vision. Time to question your vision Dude! And the only ones who can help you there are yourself and Max.

'Course questioning your own vision is hard and requires perspective and honesty......not everyone seems able to do it. Like this one guy I know who has a vision that is seriously impaired by the fact that his head is so far up his ass, his tonsils are tickling his forehead.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:03 AM

When I use the word 'we' - I always mean every single last one of 'us' contributors to our forum - including the 'great and all-powerful' Max....

Susan - who knows? I make no claims but the same one who sends you to 'us' may even send me and everyone else with the very same message. That we can stop judging each other's worth here and everywhere else - for they are the one who will do the judging - when the time comes. They are also said to work in mysterious ways.

To quote the great Dave Allen: 'May your God go with you'. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 11:06 AM

Dealing with flamers and trolls

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:02 PM

Spaw you might like this cartoon. So might anyone else who doesn't mind some effing language and/or whose naughty-word protection software at work won't have cow about it.

As far as parsing postings, I do believe the<just plain wrong stuff is the bait. Stuff that is THAT<messed up, people feel compelled to put right. Whether it's intentional or he does it because he's not that good at communicating is hard to determine. He<completely<missed the point of WYS's question. Was it on purpose or not? Shambs, the "shoot the messenger" saying has to do with messengers who deliver someone else's<words. One wonders not only whose message you're delivering, but who you're delivering it to.

Maybe more important than "who is 'we'?" is "who is NOT 'we'?" I mean it adds another 'not' into the equation, and you seem to like negative words, what with sentences that read like "Should we not be encourged to not ever shoot the messager? No? Nonaynevernomore?" I mean, it would now be "Should not those of us who are NOT us be enouraged to not to shoot the rest of us, who are?" I mean, who really IS 'we'? Am I not we, as you are, are you not, we, and are we not all 'we' together? And if it's true that it's 'us' asking the questions, and 'us' providing the answers, are we not talking to ourselves?

I am the Walrus, and I have approved this message.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:07 PM

Spaw, Pip doesn't speak Welsh but she picked this word up from one of her Welsh speaking friends and likes it. Try:

ANNA-BAY-TH-E-OL

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 12:41 PM

Thanks Jon!! A hug to the dear Pip from me!!!

Jeri........I have long felt there is a language called Shambalese. I first became aware of it back in '99 when I failed to understand what Roger was talking about. Being of a lesser intelligence myself, I enquired of him what it was he was trying to say because as I read it, it made no sense and I had some issues with him. I sent him a PM to get that clarification and received back THREE PM's, all of them 3 or more pages in length. After several hours of sifting through them repeatedly and trying to ascertain if they were in fact English or some other language, I gave up and went back to trying to get the little BB's in the eyes of the bear.

Today, you, Jeri, have given me hope! You seem to have been able to translate the Shambalese into English and even better, you seem to speak it fluently YOURSELF! How much work, study, and sheer perseverance this must have taken on your part I cannot imagine. When I read, "Should not those of us who are NOT us be enouraged to not to shoot the rest of us, who are?" I mean, who really IS 'we'? Am I not we, as you are, are you not, we, and are we not all 'we' together?", I knew you were the first person to successfully translate and use Shambalese as well as it's originator. Do you have a book and CD available? Do you take MasterCard?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 01:10 PM

There was a time when dislexia, spelling, grammar and other problems that posters may suffer with - were treated with respect on our forum and not made the subject of ridicule. A time when what someone was trying to say was respected and considered more important that the form that it appeared in.

Also there was a time when personal conversations - of little or no general interest - were thought to be best undertaken via PMs. If these personal conversations were about another poster - it was once thought better and polite - not to conduct it publicly.

There was a time when what passed between members via PM were not thought to be for public knowledge. If someone wishes to say something to me that perhaps may be of little general interest - I would be more than willing to do this via PMs and to respect the convention of privacy that is customary in this method of communication.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 01:37 PM

...........anobeithiol...........oy...........simply amazing.......okay...lessee here......

ROGER SAYS:There was a time when dislexia, spelling, grammar and other problems that posters may suffer with - were treated with respect on our forum and not made the subject of ridicule. A time when what someone was trying to say was respected and considered more important that the form that it appeared in.

Are you telling me you suffer from some problem like dyslexia or bad spelling? Roger your lyrics and poetry are simply too well done and beautiful to believe that. No, this is in fact the point of all of this----NO ONE CAN MAKE OUT WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY MOST OF THE TIME BECAUSE YOU CONVOLUTE WORDS TO FIT SOME OTHER PERSONAL VISION OR IDEA. YOU DO NOT RESPOND TO WHAT IS SAID BUT RESPOND INSTEAD TO SOME OTHER INTERPRETATION THAT ONLY YOU CAN SEE.

The fact that you are so articulate in your poetry makes many of us wonder why and how you can be so obtuse otherwise. It makes no sense and frankly makes me concerned for your mental health. You have been on this mission of yours for over 6 years now and refuse to see the reality of the situation. Your mind seems to be so consumed with this that you cannot read the "what is" but rather choose to read your own interpretation and you "communicate" it back in such a way that it is almost impossible to understand.

Forget it.....I'll just go back to the BB's and the bear........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 01:53 PM

Are you telling me you suffer from some problem like dyslexia or bad spelling?

If it matters - and I really have spell it out to you publicly - YES.

Whatever I achieve or fail to achieve at in writing prose, poetry or song - comes only after considerable trouble and great assistance from a spell-checker. I am sure that many others also struggle in this fashion and perhaps should be encouraged to express themselves as best they can - rather than feel that they have to conform to your standards?

I do not - fortunately suffer from any diagnosed mental health condition. It may be as well for you to to consider that there may well be posters who do....

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:07 PM

Fer keyriced's sakes, Shambs, I canNOT believe we were born on the exact same day and year. How about, as a b-day present to ourselves, you turn over a new leaf and give it a rest?!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Once Famous
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:11 PM

Wrong Big Mick and idiot Guest.

I don't care about power. Except if there's 110v coming out of the socket.

I think it's the other way around. Big Mick and his ILK (love that word and how it's always used here) are the one's worried about power because the old guard who is usually pretty unfriendly with bad attitude toward outsiders and ones who don't subscribe to their "Hi, I'm a liberal, phony folkie" philosophy is kind of showing some bad cracks and has plenty others thinking.

Keep at it Shambles.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Ed Skenieuwezscheivevitz
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 02:42 PM

Hi. I am a very liberal and committed folkie, a man of the people, and I take serious umbrage at the rude and disgusting comments emanating from Martin Gibson. He is a far right fanatical cyber-thug and should be subjected to incarceration and deep psychoanalysis ASAP. I suspect that Martin Gibson is a plant by the CIA or worse yet is an agent for the Skull & Bones and the New World Order, his mission to spread chaos and disorder in liberal ranks and usher in a new era of totalitarian control by the war-mongering illuminati and the Bushites who are delivering our public school systems over to fascism and destroying the Constitution.

Just a short time ago I was in Chicago, reputedly Martin's hometown, and happened to meet a certain individual in a bar and get into a lengthy conversation. This individual was a chimpanzee, dressed in a suit. He was reasonably articulate, and seemed to be interested in what I had to say about music, society, politics, and other germaine subjects of that sort.

Little did I realize he was a psychotic agent of the New World Order. After listening to me innocently enough for at least an hour, he suddenly went berserk, whipped out a pistol, and threatened to blow me away on the spot. I fled the bar. You cannot reason with people who have lost the ability to engage in reasonable dialogue.

Now, here's the rub. I strongly suspect that the chimpanzee in question was the very same person who passes himself off here AS Martin Gibson. That's right. Either that, or he and Martin are working together.

Consider the evidence in common. Martin is from Chicago. I met the chimp in Chicago. Martin swears. So did the chimp. Martin is combative and short-tempered. So was the chimp.

I intend to ferret out the truth about this matter if it takes me the next 5 years, and I am willing to sift through every one of Martin's posts painstakingly and record them all in an extensive database program in order to prove once and for all that Martin Gibson is a right-wing agent bent on destroying liberalism in American. And he's probably a chimp too.

As for Shambles, well, I have read and reread the postings by you on this thread, sir, and I must admit that they are quite impressive, but the point is so subtle that it is still somehow eluding me. This is unusual. I have a mathematically exact mind that can normally graps any degree of arcane complexity, due to a 40-year career in folk music, and yet I cannot fully grasp what you are on about. You are either a genius or a complete idiot. My plan at this point is to recover and read ALL your postings from the past five years, and run them through my database analyzer. When I have reached a definitive conclusion as to their exact meaning, I will get right back to you. Meanwhile, do carry on. You are clearly a man with a mission.

Amd don't forget to buy my new album:

"Day of the Dolphins"

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:03 PM

Glad you overcome the problems Shambles. And I am well aware of quite a few who have similar problems......and I make no fun of them....nor do I make fun of you. I'm well aware also that a number of us have some mental health problems actually diagnosed. None of this has anything to do with it. I am just trying to understand what the problem is with your failure to acknowledge what is being said.   I think perhaps the answer is quite simple....You refuse to do so.

So I guess rather than treat you as a member here who is stating an opinion, your long diatribes in the face of all factual info given you seems instead that you are just yet another troll. Is that it? You're a weird kind of troll perhaps.

So let's see............

You pose the same questions over and over and refuse to accept any answer given to you that does not conform to your vision.

You refuse to answer questions in a straightforward manner butinstead twist the verbage to suit your needs.

You don't acknowledge that Max is the final arbiter here and refuse to take your problems to him (in PM form if you like it so well). You even seemingly refuse to accept an answer from Max if he gives you one (and that's a mental health issue).

Under all of these conditions, why not just close this thread? Or maybe as you would obviously prefer, we all agree to give it a break?   I mean really, what the hell else can be said at this point? Is there anything you haven't stated and asked repeatedly? All of those things that I can see have been answered, but without answers you accept.....so there's no point in asking again now is there?

Anything new? If not, let this die.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 03:25 PM

Still droning on I see Roger!
I think it was Jerome K Jerome who said, "His huff arrived, and he went off in it" Remind you guys of anyone?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: harpgirl
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:09 PM

Since we are on the subject, who are the cloneheads exactly at this moment in time? What have each of you deleted, changed, modified, or rewritten in the last week? Why? or why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 04:54 PM

Ed Skenieuwezscheivevitz, are you Polish?
We had a great Polish Easter, Borscht with kielbasa, and slejie (picled herring) - Polish cheesecake for dessert, all made by my Polish wife and mother-in-law.
Happy Easter!
-Joe Offer-

450

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:09 PM

Ed, you are the guy that needs his head examined. I'd get right on it. I should not have pulled the gun on you, but you should not have insulted chimps after givin' me a headache for a solid hour and a half with all your crazy paranoid political stuff. You are seriously out of touch, man. You need help.

No, I am not Martin Gibson. I ain't had the pleasure to meet him, but I figure I will one of these days. I don't work for the friggin' New World Order and I doubt that Martin does either, but who can say? I think you oughta learn to control your mouth, mister.

I listened to your "Day of the Dolphins" CD. Frankly, it's not good. Sorry to tell you that, but it's not. Not to me anyway. I figure it could be useful though, to break down hardened criminals and wring confessions out of them by repeated playings. It would be cruel and unusual punishment, but it wouldn't do permanent harm, so I'm for it.

I got your hat here. The one that says "Folk You!". I will send it if you provide a mailing address.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:25 PM

Harpy.......If I were a Clonehead, I would have to say that I haven't changed a thing in the past three weeks or more. However I would be thinking of adding "I just love Catspaw" to your above post. Whaddaya' think?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: harpgirl
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:35 PM

Since we are on the subject, who are the cloneheads exactly at this moment in time? What have each of you deleted, changed, modified, or rewritten in the last week? Why? or why not?

I just love catspaw.

[so do I ----skinny clone
(I have not changed or deleted anything in 2 weeks, and then it was just editing spelling) ]

[I don't know .... I guess he is all right, given the fact that he is a layabout.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 05:41 PM

awwwwww........................geee whizz....................**blush**............

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 06:06 PM

Yes, Joe Offer, he is.   His friends call him 'Skinny'.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 05 - 10:22 PM

Joe's friends used to call him "Skinny." I haven't been called skinny in ten years, since I gave up smoking and gained weight....
But thanks, anyhow, Ebbie.
-Joe Offer, 190 pounds or so-

(I was 145)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,jOhn from Hull
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 05:16 PM

Mr Shambles- Fuvkingf shut up, most pepople is fed up of seeiing you rubbish.john

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 05:17 PM

ps= you are big moany person, and never make any good tghreads any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Ebbie
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 08:14 PM

jOhnNy, don't be a one-noter, OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,bobad
Date: 28 Mar 05 - 09:27 PM

Joe

It's that Polish food.It'll do it everytime.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 07:23 AM

None of this has anything to do with it. I am just trying to understand what the problem is with your failure to acknowledge what is being said.   I think perhaps the answer is quite simple....You refuse to do so.

I do repond to most posts made on the subject. I remain open to persuasion and demonstration that the facts are not as I state.

I do refuse to respond in kind or at all to abusive personal attacks. And this thread (and others) will show that I have not chosen to respond in kind to your abusive personal attacks upon me. It will also demonstrate to you - (who unlike many others - seem to find this impossible) - how perfectly easy it is to ignore all obvious provocation.

Others can judge - but what you have posted to me are abusive personal attacks and (mistaken) personal judgements. Although not I suspect posted really for MY attention but for the benefit of the rest of your posse members and the watching crowd. You should not be too surprised if I treat these abusive personal attacks (which you and some of your fellow posse members largely encourage by setting this example) in the same way as I treat the rest......

It has rather a lot to do with the fact that when you (and the other members of your posse) post only to make your uneeded and unrequested judgements on the worth of other posters - as in this case - you will usually be wrong. As all this judgement, division and personal abusive attacks from the favoured few - is NOT the object of our public discussion forum.   

You will also inhibit other posters and risk causing real pain - in an exercise that you seem to see as re-enforcing the bonds that hold your posse members together - i.e' the exclusion and riducule of those who do not think like 'we' do.

The answer to this for you - is simple. If you do not like or accept the fact that the public are invited to have their say and agree or not - or that they may choose and are entitled not to agree with you - perhaps you and those that find this discussion and open debate a problem - can find somewhere else where you can sit and judge each other's worth and abusive each other - until your heart's content?

Many post to say many different things - what I choose to respond to - and in what fashion remains a matter for me. As what you or any other poster may post to say is a matter for you. And that really is the answer to your problem. If don't like my view - fine. No one is forcing you to ever open this thread (or any thread) - or to discuss this subject ever again.   

My view is simple and is evidenced - that the 'spin' of what censorship here is being defended by - is not the reality of what is actually happening. Whether there is anything 'sinister' in this - is a matter for you to judge. But as this censorship it is not open, fair or have any clear objective - the motives of it will always be all open to question - until it is open, fair and has a clear objective.

The one certainty is that - whatever other damage has been done and is being done to our forum - all this retrospective editing and imposed judgement has not prevented abusive personal attacks from being mounted. Especially when the example is set by our volunteers indulging themselves in mounting these, inciting others to do so and encouraging the idea that there is something amusing in this. And still attempting to maintain some moral high-ground.

I have no real idea why this thread on this subject is thought by some to be any worse than one with 10,000 post saying nothing - or any on the many other strange subjects that threads are about - but if YOU don't POST to any thread - It will die (eventually).

Any thread that YOU don't decide to open IS EFFECTIVLY ClOSED...........

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 07:56 AM

Glad you overcome the problems Shambles. And I am well aware of quite a few who have similar problems......and I make no fun of them....nor do I make fun of you. I'm well aware also that a number of us have some mental health problems actually diagnosed.

You do not seem to be aware that you never 'overcome' these problems. Folk are constantly struggling with them and whatever progress they may make in tackling them and whatever confidence they may have slowly gained - can be destroyed by a single casual remark, action or needless personal judgement made of their abilities.

Over a long period - Max's Mudcat Forum has been very helpful to me in building up the confidence to express myself in writing. I would like to see it remain a place where others would also feel safe and free to also be able to build-up their confidence and tackle what ever difficulties they may have. Without being judged.

If sometimes appears that folk now are being encouraged to think that what our forum is now only about - is for posting personal judgements of the worth of other posters and their right to post.

The idea that there are good posters and bad posters is not a judgement made publicly by Max - it is a matter only of personal taste. There are only good posts - (the ones that you find interesting to read and may respond to) and not so good posts (the ones that don't interest you and you will not respond to).

As it is possible for posts from the same poster to fall into both catagories - the idea that you should be encouraged to judge any poster to be a good poster or a bad poster is clearly nonsense and counter-productive.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Giok
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 08:15 AM

'Judge not, lest that ye be judged' Cuts two ways Roger!
                         then there's
'If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen'
                         and of course the immortal
'When you are in a hole stop digging'

You've had support and encouragement, more than I think you deserve, from several people on this thread. I think you should rest on your laurels, as in the same way as 'You can't fool all of the people all of the time', you also can't persuade everybody to agree with your point of view, all of the time.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 02:03 PM

"It's that Polish food.It'll do it everytime."

Why does Joe polish his food?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 03:56 PM

Spaw's Spurious Spinnin' Volunteer Mudcat Posse...........Sounds like a song title. Anyway, while the posse is feedin' their horses and tossin' back a few smart-ass remarks, let me try again.

Shambles says....."I do re(s)pond to most posts made on the subject."

Okay then, let's keep this simple and straightforward. The subject here is censorship at "Max's Mudcat Forum." It's the thread title. I think it is fair to say that your very well established position is that there is too much to begin with and the system in place, along with those involved, is not to your liking and you believe it to be detrimental to the forum. I think we do agree that although it is often referred to by all of us to be "our" forum, the owner and final arbiter/decision maker here is Max. So now, two simple questions which are not rhetorical and are on the subject.....questions, in other words, of the type to which you say you respond.

Have you written directly to Max via PM/e-mail within the past 2 weeks regarding your concerns or linked him to this thread? If so, what response have you received?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:13 PM

I have this image of Max coming home from a long, hard day in the Real World, and opening any one of a number of BS threads, maybe even this one, and wondering, "Shit, did I shave my legs for THIS?"

How many times can a man be motivated to re-tinker the old hardware, cut family time short, and rethink the design-- for the kind of crap that is now the daily fare at Mudcat? And people think censorship is the issue-- it ain't. Puerility, now there's a problem.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:36 PM

sometimes appears that folk now are being encouraged to think that what our forum is now only about - is for posting personal judgements of the worth of other posters and their right to post.

Huh? I must have missed That! Where is/are the post(s) that can be interpreted in that way?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:43 PM

"I have this image of Max coming home from a long, hard day in the Real World"

The implication of the above statement is that Mudcat is NOT part of the real world. That is a mistake in either perception or logic, IMO.

We can argue that TV is not part of the real world, but we all know better. The internet is as real as are many other technologies that exist today. No more, no less. Calling a shhep a dog will not make it bark; but calling the internet interactions of real people 'not part of the real world' doesn't fly right with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:11 PM

That's a little facetious, brucie, imo. What I am sure Susan meant was from a long hard day at work in the 3D world. Also, remember that Max is the Primo Volunteer of us all, with Pene Azul right beside him. Besides that Susan is one of the first who has MADE Mudcat real in the 3D world, too, with guesting various 'catters, etc.

Shambles, it would be a lot better if you'd quit making sweeping generalisations about some perceived kind of amorphous persecutive moderating which you claim is so rampant and the "norm" on Mudcat. Joeclones are NOT the great and powerful OZ you seem to think we are.

Frankly, I am not sure why I am even try to reason with you; it's been proven so many times, over and over, that it does not good. Hope you had a happy birthday.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:14 PM

"What I am sure Susan meant was from a long hard day at work in the 3D world."

Well, as long as YOU are sure what she meant, then all is just fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 05:54 PM

Have you written directly to Max via PM/e-mail within the past 2 weeks regarding your concerns or linked him to this thread? If so, what response have you received?

I doubt that you address and judge Max in the manner you do to me. Or discuss private exchanges publicly like you do with me. Call him names and question his sanity and invite others to follow your example - so if you make your demand to him - he may answer you.

As you make no public apology for any of your insulting comments in posts here - I see no reason why I should answer any public demand coming from you. So I won't - as it is none of your business.

Max is not the problem and does not need to be bothered for the solution - we all are the problem and we all have always had the solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 06:42 PM

The solution is simple. Get a gun. A shotgun. Load it up good and proper. Aim it at the computer (from a safe distance) and let fly with both barrels.

There will be a lot of mess to clean up afterward, but it will be worth it. The little electronic demon that, along with your TV, has deprived you of a normal human life for decades now will be GONE, GONE, GONE.

You will find you now have oodles of time to do the normal and natural things you once did, long ago...the things that people in places like Cuba and Trinidad STILL do...like going outside, gardening, exercising, cooking, playing sports, reading books, enjoying the weather, riding a bike, cleaning, painting a picture, socializing, playing music...

Paradise lost will have been found again.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 08:27 PM

Soon this thread will take lotsa time to load and that will be a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:09 AM

If certain posters (i.e Brucie) had not posted to this thread (at least) 65 times - in order to say very little - this thread may have died a natural death some time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavergis
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:12 AM

As Brucie says, this thread is getting unwieldy. It also carries a lot of invective and unnecessary personal criticism.

I am a member of several forums, and some of them publish their "constitution". I will try to distil from them a feew simple rules regarding cencorship, and put them up for discussion. We don't have to apply them, this is up to Max. But it will be good to see if we can find some common ground by keeping it simple. Perhaps Roger and I might find ourselves on the same side of the fence as Little Hawk and Brucie...Who knows?

I will start a new thread for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:30 AM

I see that some posts in this thread Dealing with flamers and trolls have just been deleted for - what the brown writing says is 'anti-social behaviour'.

Do we then expect this thread and all others to be also purged of all posts containing this 'anti-social behaviour'?

Can we perhaps be told how is this conduct defined and by whom? What posters it applies to and what posters it will never apply to - no matter how poor an example they set?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:06 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario - PM
Date: 29 Mar 05 - 04:36 PM

sometimes appears that folk now are being encouraged to think that what our forum is now only about - is for posting personal judgements of the worth of other posters and their right to post.

Huh? I must have missed That! Where is/are the post(s) that can be interpreted in that way?

Mmario – There is no shortage of these posts. The following one is probably one of the best single examples currently being set. There are a number of rules to follow – which this one demonstrates well. All of them ignoring the fact that encouraging all this personal judgement to be posted - is pointless and counter-productive.

1. First you make sure that the poster you are judging negatively is an easy target and any groundless inference you may make about them will be just more 'mud' that might easily stick.
2. Secondly you always use the royal 'we' and refer to 'us' – to imply that this is the view of those posters who matter.
3. Thirdly you never miss the chance to include some other poster's names and if you can – and if you get the chance - to make some ingratiating remarks about how positive a poster they are and what a good example they are setting.
4. It is not always necessary to make a thinly veiled threat of some sort – this is optional. As is actually making any contribution to the subject of the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Can't Refresh A Closed Thread : RE jOhn
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 01 Feb 05 - 08:48 PM

Quite frankly, Roger, it is fortunate for you that someone as level headed as Joe, Jeff, and Max are, is making the decisions. If it were my decision, I would block you. Here is why.

First off, you have nothing constructive to say. The majority of your posts, by a large margin, are on a single subject. That subject is your dissatisfaction with this place. With very few exceptions (the Pianist thread) that is all you post about.

Second, It is clear that you gain some kind of gratification from complaining, and the resultant nasty responses from folks. It is like a Quixote complex gone mad. It seems counter productive to keep feeding this.

I know that M, J & J are correct in their response to you. But a number of us feel that the forum would be better served without you in it. I wish that were not so. In fact I remember a time when you contributed mightily to this place. I wish that were still the case. In short, you are the best case that can be made for a moderated forum. Fortunately there is only one of you.

I am posting this because of your focus on Joe. Joe has actually been one of your saving graces. There are a number of us that are pretty much at the end of our rope. You don't recognize that we understand Max's desire to keep this place as it is, hence you are allowed to continue. Instead of complaining about them, you should be grateful.

Mick the Mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:21 AM

Shambles,

(click).

sincerely,
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:51 AM

Was this the bit you meant from that thread, Joe?
I think one of the problems is that if you (as session leader or organiser or whatever) are seen to be laying down rules in a pub - like no singing etc - some folk seem to see that as a red-rag to a bull and will then do their best to just to mess things-up for everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:06 AM

No, George - just the thread title...
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:17 AM

I thought as much; but the statement I quoted seems an excellent summary of self.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavergis
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:32 AM

OK, El Gringo, I suppose you feel smug because you are in cahoots with Joe Offer and the faceless ones. What is wrong with feeling strongly about cencorship with no accountability? And why don't you "f*** off politely" back to Spain or Mexico or wherever it is you come from?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:59 AM

Thank you, Xander - I love you too.
You got the country wrong by the way, it's England. And I'm already there.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:30 PM

I did also say the following in that same thread.

I did say that it was sad but if folk don't follow the conventions - this does not give you the right to start flouting them too. There is no polite way of telling someone to **** ***.

For if you have volunteered to prevent abusive personal attacks from being posted - should you really been seen to be setting such an example? Of saying anything like this - to another poster that Max has invited to contribute to the part of his site that he has set aside for contributions from the public?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:44 PM

When I tell someone to fuck off, I mean it in the nicest way possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavergis
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:18 PM

I'm sure you do, Brucie

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: kendall
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:02 AM

I wouldn't be paranoid if everyone were not out to get me.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:39 AM

Shambles - I honestly cannot see how you draw those inferences from the post you qouted - if anything the OPPISETE appears to be true to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:15 AM

Alanis Oppisete?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:47 AM

Shambles - I honestly cannot see how you draw those inferences from the post you qouted - if anything the OPPISETE appears to be true to me.

OK MMario - how about this example then?

From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:02 AM

Those of you who continue to debate are very silly. This person continues to try and set the predicate that this is "our" forum. It is not now, never has been and never will be. Max owns it, maintains it and decides what it will or will not be. This person continues to draw you into the discourse based on incorrect assertions, has made it clear that he will not accept any answer other than what he wants to hear. It seems to me that those that encourage him are no less guilty than he is.

In this one - not only I am judged guilty (of quite what I am not too sure) but everyone else is judge to be guilty of something too.

Quite how anyone is judged guilty by engaging in debate in a public discussion forum set up for that very thing - escapes me. Or are we judged guilty of being silly? It looks as if there is an example being set here of encouraging an awful lot of personal judgement of the worth of fellow posters.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:03 AM

Possibly because you, shambles, do not debate. You repeat the same (false) claims repeatedly and ignore anything posted which does not support your claims. You twist postings out of context to also support your claims. You ignore answers to your questions. You refuse to answer questions asked of you or answer a twisted and warped version of the question usually out of context.

this is not debate.

you are not being accused of debating. You are being accused of not debating. Your posted record supports this.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:50 PM

Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos.

So, Max appointed some of us to try to keep down the worst of the nastiness. We don't do enough to satisfy some people (Clinton Hammond, for example), and we do too much to satisfy Shambles.

So, we continue to stumble along what we see as the middle path, knowing that we will never satisfy everybody. Such is life.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 01:27 PM

Well Joe you could adopt my motto for life.

You die if you worry; you die if you don't worry.
So why worry?

Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 01:41 PM

That is an excellent philosophy.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 01:50 PM

"In this one - not only I am judged guilty (of quite what I am not too sure) but everyone else is judge to be guilty of something too."

GUILT? I am guilty of lotsa stuff. Every now and then I'm a real asshole. I am not always polite. I sometimes take things the wrong way. However, this morning I noticed that the sun rose. And I was still alive to greet it. All in all, things could be lots worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:00 PM

Not necessarily from the perspective of some 'catters, but from my perspective.

This thread--unlike my sheep-shagging thread from days of yore--has wasted lots of my time. I am OUTTA HERE! Yours in censorship.

Brucie

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:01 PM

Number

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:01 PM

500 El Ted

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:05 PM

Time for part two ??

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 05:13 PM

No part 2. It can load 50 posts at a time as it is.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 07:20 AM

Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum.

Well as I read this first bit on 1st April - I thought this agreement must be an attempt at an April fool,s joke...For on another current thread - you will see another (known) volunteer - making a personal attack upon me - and saying the opposite.   

From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:02 AM

Those of you who continue to debate are very silly. This person continues to try and set the predicate that this is "our" forum. It is not now, never has been and never will be. Max owns it, maintains it and decides what it will or will not be. This person continues to draw you into the discourse based on incorrect assertions, has made it clear that he will not accept any answer other than what he wants to hear. It seems to me that those that encourage him are no less guilty than he is.


However, when I read the second bit....

However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos.

I was convinced that it was an attempt at an April fool's joke.........

For sadly - our forum has already been taken over by a trusted few.
Some who have betrayed that trust by setting the example of and indulged themselves in more 'combat' and abusive personal attacks upon fellow posters - than probably any other contributor.

Some who have betrayed that trust by worrying more about their control over every small aspect of what others post on their forum - ever being 'taken over' - from them - than they do about how chaotic, combative and judgemental our forum becomes.

I don't think that anyone really wants to 'take over'. But I have denonstrated that the current control affects the simple freedoms of resonsible posters MORE than it has any affect of the iresponisible ones.

And when from their behaviour and the example they set - it is difficult to tell those trusted ones from the (very few) iresponsible posters (especially when some of these reamain anonymous) - it is perhaps time for a serious review of all aspects of censorship here............So that it can once again become OUR forum.

That is ALL of us even our volunteers - who I really have no personal gripe with - but who - I feel are placed in an immposible position.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 07:38 AM

Mudcat censorship - a proposal

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 08:29 AM

Do you know what it means when someone puts something in quotation marks? You should as you use them overmuch yourself!
Once again you are playing selective quotes, eg However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos. quoted as if it were part of the same post. That's not how Big Micks post reads if I follow your blue clicky.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 09:29 AM

No you are right.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 11:13 AM

I am delighted to announce that Shambles, based on PMs received, has decided to recant and mend his fences with Joe Offer, whom he has always privately worshipped. He has decided to support the Mudcat Clique in every way possible and is applying for a position as a Joe Clone. He is also recommending to Max that Big Mick be elected King to hand down policy decisions and organize the members. He did not specify which members.

In response, Joe Offer has reported he is deeply gratified at Shambles' conversion, and he plans to provide Shambles with a complete set of passwords to the site so that he can restore all posts previously deleted back to 1978, including everything Gargoyle ever wrote.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 12:07 PM

Amos that was private.

I would appreciate that you respect to convention that what passes between us in PMs - is not for public consumption.....Yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 01:39 PM

When I use the word 'we' - I always mean every single last one of 'us' contributors to our forum - including the 'great and all-powerful' Max....

Roger,

I never gave you permission to speak for me.

You do not speak for me.

Since you are so scrupulously honest, in future when you say "we", kindly add the rider "except for Rædwulf".

{parenthesis: I think you will find that the list of exceptions grows beyond all bounds as soon as people realise they can ask you not to speak in their name}

When will you realise that you speak for yourself (&, maybe, harpgirl) & next to no-one else?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 03:06 PM

Amos,

you spoil it. Whereas Shambles struggles to add to the comic side of Mudcat you post a completley serious post in the middle of the hilarious exchanges. You don't honour this day.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 03:11 PM

LOL at Wolfie.......that was good!!!!!!

And who says Germans have no sense of humor?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 03:23 PM

Amos,

you spoil it. Whereas Shambles struggles to add to the comic side of Mudcat you post a completley serious post in the middle of the hilarious exchanges. You don't honour this day.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 05:27 PM

It was only funny once Wolfgang....................geeziz, maybe Germans don't have a sense of humor..................

Spaw(:<)).....Do you want me to delete that second one Wolfie?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 05:36 PM

For flip's sake! Have some respect for the dead (me), and let this thread lie dormant for at least a day, will you!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:07 AM

Since you are so scrupulously honest, in future when you say "we", kindly add the rider "except for Rædwulf".

If you wish to exclude yourself from anything - you are perfectly welcome to do this.

I will continue to try and take care to use that word to be inclusive - so that I do not exclude you or anyone else.

For anyone to be rejected – intentionally or by default – and be excluded from anything against their wishes - remains a 'big deal' and not to be taken lightly. Those that don't see imposing their judgement and excluding other posters invited to the party - as always being a 'big deal' - perhaps should not be in the position of excluding anyone?

Keep in mind that perhaps the LAST person you want deleting stuff is somebody who says "Ooh, let me do it...I WANNA do it!"

Jeri in this thread.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=72778&messages=102&page=1&desc=yes

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 07:37 AM

That 1st of April has turned out to be one Mother of a long day!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 01:49 PM

Roger - Congratulations. More meaningless drivel. Be clear, please. After all, you love clarity & truth.

Next time you say "we", are you speaking for me? Or not? And will you make it clear that you are not speaking for me, and that you are not speaking for anyone except those that have explicitly given you permission to speak for them?

No, I don't think you will, because you're full of... yourself... & intent only on anything that will support & reinforce your one-eyed self-interested version of reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 02:54 PM

Put me on the list with Raedwulf, Shambles. You use the term "we" to imply agreement, and that you speak for others. You definitely do not speak for me. We are all free to express what we believe in here, but that's all that we do. We express what we believe. The only "we" is ourselves.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 02:56 PM

When I use the word we (or us) - I do not presume to speak for - or answer for anyone else. I use the word to mean (me and) everyone else - because I wish to speak TO everyone else and not only to a selected few.


I was thinking back on my time posting as a member here - as a strange and developing game of football (soccer).

We start off on equal terms and kicking in the same direction as my fellow team members in an informal and very enjoyable game of football.
However, Soon one of them becomes the referee and starts to make-up the rules.
Then most of the rest of my team appear to also become referees and start kicking in the other direction.
Some of these begin to behave very badly and set a poor example on the pitch by making abusive personal comments and to judge everyone else and their right to play.
To give out red-cards and send others off the pitch.
Soon the pretence of having a game of football is ended and despite the increasing number of rules and officials to enforce them - the whole thing turns into bullying and becomes a free-for-all gang fight.

Is it time to put the jackets down (for goalposts) and try again?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 03:54 PM

When I use the word we (or us) - I do not presume to speak for - or answer for anyone else. I use the word to mean (me and) everyone else - because I wish to speak TO everyone else and not only to a selected few.

I'm neither concerned that you intend exclusion, Roger, nor about who does (or does not) feel you are authorized to speak for them.

I'm looking just at the practical side of "we."

At any given moment, on any given day, there is a completely unique "we" present at Mudcat. Now how do you propose making sure that everyone included in "we" on April 23, 2006 knows that something has or has not been agreed upon at a particular point in time? How will they know what the particulars are?

Hm?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 04:34 PM

I wouldn't worry Susan, he even has games of footbal with more than one ref on the field now - and it appears they even kick the ball.

As an aside, there was a ref in a non league game who wilfully did score a goal. The team he scored for was getting slaughtered and he saw it as a bit of humour as there was no doubt as to the outcome of the game. see here

Mind you, football is getting strange in other ways. 2 players on the same side decided to have a punchup today see here

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:55 PM

Stop talking crap, Roger. Your "team" consists of you, nobody else. So try using I in future, not a spurious "we" that gives an illegitimate legitimacy to your monomania.

You speak for yourself. Nobody else. When it comes to PELs, certainly there are plenty who share your opinions. When it comes to censorship, there's just you. Always you. Tediously you!

So stop talking "we", because there is no "we". Not until somebody publicly gives you permission to speak for them. It's just you, Roger. Always just you. Tediously, boringly, repetitively, you... {yawn}

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Big Mick
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:39 PM

The alteration Mujcat needs must occur in the minds of the folks that respond to this stuff. Roger is entitled to his opinion, and in virtually every posters response they have indicated they are tired of his restating the same thing over and over; they are tired of him twisting quotes to serve himself; they go on and on about how he goes on and on. Do you folks learn anything? Who is worse, Roger or you? The question to Roger about who is "we" has been asked over and over.

Roger isn't the problem anymore. Those that feed him are.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 10:44 PM

New Mudcat Mantra: DNR! (DO Not Respond!)

OR,"Remember the Filter!" (Tick the Filter Out box, put the name of whomever's posts you do NOT want to see in the filter box and hit Refresh. Voila! Their posts no longer show up!)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 05:52 AM

At any given moment, on any given day, there is a completely unique "we" present at Mudcat. Now how do you propose making sure that everyone included in "we" on April 23, 2006 knows that something has or has not been agreed upon at a particular point in time? How will they know what the particulars are?

As I have said - I do not presume (unlike others here) to speak FOR anyone else but I do not exclude anyone here that I wish to talk TO - so what does it matter?

Would I be safe to use the term Mudcatters as long as it was clear that I was not speaking for anyone else but myself?

How is that no one appears gets their knickers in twist when Joe and Co use the word 'we' in a divisive way - in order to exclude ordinary Mudcatters? But only when I use it to include and refer to all Mudcatters?


It is a very strange game when referees feel they can make the rules and switch between this role and become a player - at any point in the game they choose. Perhaps not a game that is open, fair or has any clear object?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 06:27 AM

Oh sod it - I was trying to abstain from further involvement in this, but...

...to stay with the football game analogy:

It's Max's ball.
Max gave it to his friend Joe, for him and others to have a game.
We (each one of us) came onto the field, asked to play and were accepted.
Joe, having the ball, made some rules for the game. Not many, and they make some sort of sense.
One of the rules is that he (Joe) will be the referee, and he and Max agreed on some linesmen.
Sometimes we may disagree with the referee's decision - so what. We still play the game.
Dissenters (grizzlers) are annoying, as they divert attention from the game.
Dissenters are occasionally shown the yellow card.
Persistent dissenters might be shown the red card and be evicted from the game.
Now and then passers-by (GUESTs) join in the game, and we let them. We only get really annoyed if they spoil a really good move (thread).
But we stay and play the game, as long as we have fun.
It's "our" game only in the sense that we are participating, and by making good moves (threads) we can make the game more fun.
When we are tired of it, we retire for a bit.
If we really don't like any of the above, we are free to go and play somewhere else.
I, for one am staying, and am grateful for the opportunity for a kickaround.

Choose your position.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:53 AM

It's Max's ball. No argument with that


Max gave it to his friend Joe, for him and others to have a game.

I think that even Joe Offer himself might agree that this is re-writing the history of this game more than a little.......Some might even describe it as complete balls......?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 09:32 AM

Well Roger if anybody should know about writing complete balls!!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 10:19 AM

Roger, as I said, my question is not about exclusivity or about your "representing" "all Mudcatters." It's a practical matter. Please re-read my post and give it some thought.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 05:15 AM

Susan

I have thought upon the matter. I see your point. Do you propose to ban our use of the word 'we'? Or of the word 'our'? - Or the word 'us' or the ..........

I am the eggman.......

Perhaps starting another thread on this subject would be a good idea?


BTW It is now Official.......
Roger isn't the problem anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 08:57 AM

I think that goes a bit too far, El Greko. Max provides Mudcat to all of us - equally. He has chosen a few of us to use our judgment in doing moderate editing to keep the peace. He chose volunteers he trusts, people who are trusted by the majority of Mudcatters.
-Joe Offer-

The above is an editing comment (in brown) in response to El Greco's game of football (from another current thread) and inserted in his post there.

Perhaps it can be demonstrated where and when the "majority of Mudcatters" have ever chosen to place their trust in any other poster or not to place their trust in others? Or ever been asked to make this divisive choice?

Especially when many of these people - "the majority of Mudcatters" are said by Joe Offer - to be trusted by - choose and are permitted to remain anonymous?   

Why then are the "majority of Mudcatters" (especially the ones that have always contributed honestly and been prepared to always use their own names) NOT thought to be trusted by Max?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: kendall
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 09:02 AM

Joe, you sure do make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 09:08 AM

Roger, if you see my point, how do you propose to address the practical difficulties?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 09:15 AM

Is it really sense to ever trust an anonymous person? Or be said to be doing this - or ever be asked to?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 10:22 AM

Why then are the "majority of Mudcatters" (especially the ones that have always contributed honestly and been prepared to always use their own names) NOT thought to be trusted by Max? (Shambles)

A typical presuppositional question, Shambles. This is but an extreme example of the questions that make a discourse with you so difficult and often pointless. The question has no menaingful response, for it presupposes something which is wrong and then only asks 'why' this is so. And it has nothing at all to do with what Joe has said in your quote.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 12:45 PM

It's called rhetoric Wolfgang, aka verbal diarrhoea.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 04:05 PM

C'mon, Roger... that's the old "When did you stop beating your wife?" kinda question. There's no way you can answer it because the basic premise isn't true.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 05:31 PM

I doubt that Max sits around worrying about how much he can trust the average Mudcatter (whoever that might be...).

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:09 PM

Besides, LH, we all know in our heart of hearts that we are ABOVE average. :-)

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:10 PM

Yeah... (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:25 PM

Max provides Mudcat to all of us - equally.

Is this basic premise at all true now in any sense? I had always thought this to be the case - so perhaps the fault in accepting this concept - is mine?

It is very difficult to pose questions that do not look a bit skewed at this point in our forum's development - because the basic premise has been skewed so much. In a completely mad world - a sane person's views would always be seen to be a bit odd. Let us examine some aspects of how the reality of the Madcat World now is.

The forum is given to us equally - but some (even anonymous ones) are trusted to be more equal than the others - who although prepared to use their own name and be accountable for their contributions - plainly are not thought to be trusted at all.

From this trusted postion - (some of) those trusted ones indulge in setting the example of judging the worth of and mounting abusive personal attacks upon fellow posters and inciting others to do this - all done in the name of preventing abusive personal attacks...and so on.

Perhaps it can be demonstrated where and when the "majority of Mudcatters" have ever chosen to place their trust in any other poster or not to place their trust in others? Or ever been asked to make this divisive choice?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 10:37 PM

Possibly. But would anyone purchase tickets to such an event?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:18 PM

Hawk, I think that would depend on the type and quality of the individual competitions. For instance, a Tug-O-War between a Shatner Team and a NYCFTTS Team might be a big draw. The Cletus Hardinger Air Biscuit Launch might draw a huge crowd but it would depend on wind strength and direstion.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:22 PM

Those are inspired ideas, Spaw. Specially the first one. I frankly cannot understand why, with a mind like yours, you aren't a household name by now (off Mudcat, I mean...).

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:26 PM

I am Hawkster, it's just that they refer to me as "Ketchup."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:33 PM

Ah....yes, I have heard of you. Very good.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 06:23 AM

Here's another beauty of a Shambles question:

What posters it [the 'bleeping' for anti-social behaviour] applies to and what posters it will never apply to - no matter how poor an example they set?

No meaningful response is possible to such a question. It presupposes something that is in my eyes not true (that there are posters to which 'it' never will apply). In addition to that, the usual Shambles argument (no Shables post is complete without it) of the poor example that 'they' set is woven into a question.

Well, it could be argued that this was meant as a rhetorical question, but I have made the experience that Shambles has repeatedly insisted upon a response to what at best was a rhetorical question and then has wrongly attributed his inability to understand my response to the response and not to the question.

I have no control over your style, Shambles, that's completely up to you. But with me leading questions or presuppositional questions do not work.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 06:36 AM

It's just impossible Wolfgang. Here is another example of Shambles getting things twisted.

The forum is given to us equally - but some (even anonymous ones) are trusted to be more equal than the others - who although prepared to use their own name and be accountable for their contributions - plainly are not thought to be trusted at all.

Where this one goes wrong is Shambles is comparing the fact that volunteers are allowed by Max to operate anonymously with anonymous posting. The problem is that the way the volunteer system works, you have to be logged on as a member to use the system. In other words, all volunteers are people who use a consistant name or handle for their posts at Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:07 AM

Wow.......Is that what those posts mean? I'm not being sarcastic here at all. Quite sincerely I tell you that I had no idea what he was talking about as I get lost in the twisted verbage. Jon, I have read your explanation several times and I'm willing to accept your answer on faith because I cannot make hide nor hair of the quote from Shambles.......so your explanation works for me.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:22 AM

The bad thing is that some real points that could be dabated get lost in that muddled approach. Even a good cause can be lost with a bad advocate.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:00 AM

The bad thing is that some real points that could be dabated get lost in that muddled approach. Even a good cause can be lost with a bad advocate.

That is as good an excuse of avoiding addressing important issues - as there is. Nothing is stopping you from doing a better job of conducting the debate - rather than being content to repeatedly post - simply to try to sabotage any debate - by only rubbishing the advocate.

No matter how many posters contribute only to confirm that the Madcat World is flat - and how bad a job I may make of demonstrating that it is not flat. The fact is that the good old earth (on which the Madcat World rigidly remains seated) still insists on revolving.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:11 AM

Early each day at the MudCat Cafe
The little old poster he comes.
In his own special way to the people he calls,
"Come, buy my bags, fall you crumbs.
Come feed the trolls, show them you care
And you'll be sorry you do.
Their egos are hungry,
Their lives are so bare;
All it takes is time taken from you."
Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag,
Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag.
"Feed the trolls," that's what he cries,
All through the web, his posts fill the wires.
All around the world, the lists and the forums
are spammed as he sells his wares.
Although you can't see them, you know trolls are smiling
Each time someone shows that he cares.
Still his words, repeat though they're few,
Listen, listen, he's calling to you:
"Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag,
Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag."

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:22 AM

The problem is that the way the volunteer system works, you have to be logged on as a member to use the system. In other words, all volunteers are people who use a consistant name or handle for their posts at Mudcat.

As always the facts do not always support the blind defence of all aspects of the current 'system'. For that is not the case when in order to protect their identity after a 'logged-on' anonymous volunteer had imposed and deleted a posters's entire thread - the anonymous volunteer then posts as a guest - to defend their action (Using - Guest Unrepentant Clone). Actions like this could easily be seen as flaunting this trusted position and taunting lesser untrusted posters from this anonymous role.

But these nit-picking details are not really the point as anonymous posting has hardly been generally popular in the past history of our forum - has it? Why would anonymous posting be thought to be generally any more acceptable now.

How can the rest of ordinary (untrusted) Mudcatters be said (by Joe Offer) to have been shown to place their trust in any volunteer whose identity in unknown and intentinally withheld from them?

As it is divisive - perhaps it is time that volunteers were given the choice of being known ( as to their credit, many are quite prepared to be) or of not being a volunteer?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:37 AM

only rubbishing the advocate
You are doing that job, I only comment it.

Flat, revolving? Huh? Two completely independent concepts. Speaking about the earth revolving makes really a bad job out of trying to demonstrate that the earth is flat.

Shambles, you took me to task for introducing a bit of humour into this thread. The comical relief introduced by your posts like the one above comes more often.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:41 AM

Subject: RE: Deleted post
From: GUEST,unrepentant clone - PM
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 12:03 PM

Ad-I deleted it. It was only 15 minutes after it had been posted, and I was not sure anyone else had even seen it. It was posted in the music threads, was obviously copied and pasted, and not only had no commentary to explain why you posted it, it was offensive and inflammatory.

Still, I should have left a note saying what I had done and why. I had a phone call and totally forgot. Apologies for that.

We allow a lot of non-music discussion on lots of things, but it just struck me as an attempt to fan flames. That is only the 2nd post I have deleted in several months. Obviously, this volunteer moderator game is not an exact science.

The whole thread -

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=69253&messages=88

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:52 AM

The complete quote was.

That is as good an excuse of avoiding addressing important issues - as there is. Nothing is stopping you from doing a better job of conducting the debate - rather than being content to repeatedly post - simply to try to sabotage any debate - by only rubbishing the advocate.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:53 AM

As always the facts do not always support the blind defence of all aspects of the current 'system'. (Shambles)

Who does that? And what has that sentence to do with Jon's post?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 10:06 AM

Wolfgang, I guess by "blind defence", shambles means that I have, in the past, worked under Joe as a clone (although admittedly there have been changes such as the addition to close a thread since then). And that I have programmed similar moderation facilities into other message boards...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 03:30 PM

No, no, no! It's the rutabagas. And it always was. Censor that if you dare.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 03:43 PM

That's got me thinking of the sig Richard Robinson (a regular on uk.music.folk amongst other things) uses:

"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:36 AM

I've just stumbled across the following:

Subject: JOE OFFER Come Back To Us, All Is Forgiven
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 99 - 04:03 AM

Joe Offer.... known to dispense goodwill, help and gentle guidance in a common sense way which I for one am missing very much....

What changed??

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 08:48 AM

Joe Offer's reaction (also in 1999) to Shambles saying goodbye to Mudcat

My opinion is that all this verbiage serves to make matters worse. We need to get back to talking about music and good times...I hope you come back. You're a good guy.

When looking back, 1999 seems like paradise.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:01 AM

I've just nicked the 7200th post on MOABS thread. Stand by for it's deletion.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:13 AM

Good catches, Noreen and Wolfgang. Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:43 AM

Spaw is ketchup a good alias? You do know that it is sometimes necessary to bang ketchup hard on the arse to get it to work don't you?
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 12:24 PM

Ted, I'll crucify the JoeClone who would dare to delete your 7200th post - but I have to warn you that you have a very offensive apostrophe in your 09:01 AM post in this thread.

The correct expresssion is:

Stand by for its deletion.

-Joe Offer, pedantically-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 12:54 PM

Joe Offer.... known to dispense goodwill, help and gentle guidance in a common sense way which I for one am missing very much....

What changed??

Noreen - I wish I knew and could answer that one.

The example that was set then - was one of friendly inclusivness and tolerance - which I supported 100%..........

Now it would appear that you either accept the 'goodwill, 'help', 'gentle guidance' and 'common sense' - that Joe and his anonyonous volunteers will impose upon you - OR ELSE you are expected to or told - to go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 12:56 PM

Perhaps Mr. Joe and Mr. Shambles might consider working out their differences privately from this point forward? How's that for a "proposal"?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 02:04 PM

Well, I'm not really involved in the discussion at the present time. Shambles just copy-pastes excerpts from what I've said in the past, and then replies to the excerpts.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 03:56 PM

a boy's gotta have a hobby to help keep him off the streets.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jpk
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:46 PM

and may god bless   see aint no censor's here

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 10:12 PM

Yes, there fucking is.

This place is getting censored more than ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:11 AM

Not the entire place Martin..........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 03:44 AM

Sorry about the apostrophe Joe, I done gone left school when I was nine years old and Didn't get no education.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 04:20 AM

I thought you were still at school FT

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 06:54 AM

Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed!
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 07:17 PM

Sorry, Peter. We routinely close or delete all threads that look like they're going to be an attack on an individual. Yours got deleted before it turned into another slugfest. There was no way it was going to turn out to be a constructive discussion.
As for any thread about gargoyle or Martin Gibson, we don't even think twice. We delete it.
Learn to live with it.
-Joe Offer-

Learn to live with it. The question is what exactly is IT – that all Mudcatters are being told that have to now 'learn to live with' and who comprises of the 'we' that is now telling them this?

Is the same 'we' that is being spoken for here?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:12 PM

And Martin, it's just fine for you to say "fuckashitpiss" occasionally - as long as it isn't part of a personal attack. If saying "fuckashitpiss" makes you feel good, it's O.K.

We want you to feel good.

-Sister Mary Joe Offer, R.S.V.P.-

Whether stated in all seriousness or in jest - it is NOT my view – is it speaking for yours? Or perhaps the views of the rest of Mudcatters don't matter now? Perhaps we will just have to learn to live with this too - for there does not now appear to be any choice?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 07:31 AM

Correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 07:34 AM

Excellent Noreen - end of subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 08:45 AM

The Shambles is correct as usual.Nasty posts have stopped a lot of people I know from posting here anymore. I know they are reading, because we talk about various threads in the pub on a weekend. But they sure ain't going to post for fear of getting their heads bitten off.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM

Someone posted recently to the effect that we - (meaning Mudcatters) - were not children.....This was just before they childishly took considerable trouble to create an alternate menbership and personality in order to start a thread - by expressing entirely bogus views........

Mudcat censorship – a proposal

At least those who are considered to be so anti-social and get their posts deleted by anonymous but 'trusted' volunteers - (for making 'obnoxious' posts to claim the 100th posts) - don't start an entire bogus thread - simply to entertain themselves with the genuine reactions posted to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:13 AM

His huff arrived; and he went off in it!
G ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:26 AM

I see he has a new 2 door hardtop Huff. The color is kind of distasteful though.......What would you call that? Babyshit Orange or Shitmuckledung?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 08:29 AM

Looks a bit off colour [note spelling;~)] to me Spaw.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Margo
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 12:32 AM

OHHH, shut up.

BG, Margo

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 07:50 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: kendall - PM
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 07:41 AM

Without some control this site could degenerate into just another cesspool of personal attacks, and end up inhabited by nasty people who drive good folks away.
If a handful of assholes lack the wit to temper what they say here, they should be censored.

Any objective poster reading this thread from the start - will find a perfect example of the few 'who lack the wit to temper what they say here" This is with the current control that many still blindly support.

They will see the same names posting abusive personal attacks and being encouraged to make these judgements by the example that is set by our trusted volunteers.

Are good folks being driven-off by these 'nasty folks' and are they too worried about themseves being subject to these 'semi-official' personal attacks - to feel free to express a view that may also bring this attention upon them?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Once Famous
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 05:45 PM

FUCKASHITPISS

We now resume this stupid nonsense.

Thanks. You all wouldn't offend so easily if you had something other than a paper asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 05:55 PM

Compared to this, the 'cat ain't even a minor infringement.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 02:12 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Pubic information service
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 03:11 AM

Friggin' amazing.................I'll grant that I'm around less than I used to be and things do change over time, but when the hell did the chat become some kindof privileged communication? Is there about to be another altercation.....this one between the chatters and non-chatters? How in the name of gawd do we take such simple and fun stuff and jam-pack it with rules?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 05:43 AM

Paper assholes are handy, Martin - they are self-cleaning. You should get one.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 05:45 AM

Then others wouldn't have to clean up after you

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,El Greko sans biscuit
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 05:47 AM

Sorry - the last two GUEST posts were mine.
Just a joke, Martin, no offence meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 12:23 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: El Greko - PM
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM

Xander, you talk rubbish - as Martin Gibbons might have said in more flowery language :-)

Absolute freedom is open to absolute abuse and would destroy this forum. Normal rules of civility should apply, and where they do not, the clones should be allowed to trim offending or time-wasting (or disk space-wasting) texts.


Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: El Greko - PM
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:36 AM

I happen to have met all three "bullies", GUEST, and my opinion is radically different to yours; I found them to be fair, erudite, logical and open-minded. But hey, the world is big enough for us to have different opinions, so no problem.

I am in favour of minimal censorship, next to zero: The only case I would say it is needed is when libellour remarks have been made, and that is only to protect Max as the owner of the site. As for the rest, sexist or racist or hate-mongering and name-calling posts don't worry me; I am old enough to ignore them and form an opinion about the posters - just like in the 3-D world, really. There is no better antidote than to ignore such rubbish and those that peddle it.


Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: El Greko - PM
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM

...except we are not children, Roger. The argument again does not stack up.


'Oh the games people play now'

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 12:31 PM

Funny, Roger. Read my 06:18PM post from the "Why do you offend so easily" thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 02:24 AM

What's the matter with this thread?

It was you who started it...........

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 02:36 AM

As long as everybody's gettin' along . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 02:42 AM

Morning, all

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 03:21 AM

Funny, Roger. Read my 06:18PM post from the "Why do you offend so easily" thread.

Is that the one where you claim that you may offend people - 'by being yourself'?

And where you go on to say that it was their fault - if anyone was offended by you taking-up another membership and a new name - in order to not 'be yourself' for an April fools' jest?

Perhaps this latter excuse from you would have a little more justification - if the jest in question - had not started on the 30th March? Perhaps anyone who was offended - could be excused for being offended by a April fools' jest - started some two days too soon?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 03:30 AM

"Perhaps this latter excuse from you would have a little more justification - if the jest in question - had not started on the 30th March?"

El G announced it at least ten days prior to starting the joke if memory serves.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:33 AM

Thanks Brucie. Indeed, I gave plenty of warning (three times) well before.

Yes, Roger - that's me. No pretence. I occasionally crack jokes; especially April Fool ones. They are not malicious (at least I don't think they are, and I don't mean them to be). End of story. There isn't any more. No alterior motive. One can either laugh with me, laugh at me when the joke falls flat, ignore me, get annoyed, take offence where none was meant, misinterpret, quote out of context, whatever. People can make their own choice according to their conscience. Mine is clear.

Life's too short to spend trying to please all the people all of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:38 AM

Who takes any notice of George? :~)
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:41 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:42 AM

hat was a very underhanded way of claiming the 600th post, Giok ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:56 AM

Life's too short to spend trying to please all the people all of the time.

Is that just as long as you are seen to be trying hard enough to please the ones who you think may prove to matter to you?

I am reminded of the phrase TO TESTICULATE.

This phrase is used to describe the act of gesticulating wildly in order to be noticed by those who are thought to matter - whilst actually talking complete 'bollocks'.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 06:29 AM

El Greco - Xander - George or whatever other handle you may choose to post under and for whatever reason you choose to do it.

Which of these two rather conflicting views is it to be?

Absolute freedom is open to absolute abuse and would destroy this forum. Normal rules of civility should apply, and where they do not, the clones should be allowed to trim offending or time-wasting (or disk space-wasting) texts.

I am in favour of minimal censorship, next to zero: The only case I would say it is needed is when libellour remarks have been made, and that is only to protect Max as the owner of the site.

Or is really wise for us - not to take any notice of any views expressed by any of your many guises?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 06:47 AM

Eleventh commandment: Thou shalt not laugh

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 06:55 AM

It is quite noticible that for once the shabmles has opted not to quote with the names. Let us try it in shambles normal style (cut down a little by me to shorten my posting while retaining what shambles quoted):

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Xander
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 12:55 PM

there are some (very few) cases where deletion could be allowed, I think, namely when a potentially libellous comment has been made; or when personal information about someone has been disclosed, that could be open to abuse; that would be to keep Max safe from prosecution, as the owner of the forum.

Post - Top - Forum Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: El Greko
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM

Xander, you talk rubbish - as Martin Gibbons might have said in more flowery language :-)

Absolute freedom is open to absolute abuse and would destroy this forum. Normal rules of civility should apply, and where they do not, the clones should be allowed to trim offending or time-wasting (or disk space-wasting) texts.

----------------

Whether we agree with El Greko's actions or not, it was quite obvious to any that the character Xander he created was a different "personality" to "El Greko" and as such obviously took a different stance for the "joke".

I belieive shables (unusual) ommision of the names of posters is soley due to the fact that shambles is quite aware that his argument would become nonsensical had they been included but by ommision, he had another oppertunity to shit stir.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 09:18 AM

Thank you Jon, you are right. Also, at the "unmasking", Xander retracted fully all comments he had written until then. Anything I ever wrote as El Greko, that's me - George Papavgeris, Olga's son - and I stand by it, and I can be taken to task for it. Anything Xander wrote was a fake, a joke, a hoax, bunkum, and I will not defend it.

I like the "testiculate" expression, Roger; I will use it in the future, if I may. As to the reason you mentioned it, I know you are averse to people making personal judgements in public, so I cannot imagine that it was meant offensively.

Come on, smile. Just a little... Please?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 10:56 AM

I thought he posted it as a self-explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 01:08 PM

If you want names..........

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: El Greko - PM
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:36 AM

I happen to have met all three "bullies", GUEST, and my opinion is radically different to yours; I found them to be fair, erudite, logical and open-minded. But hey, the world is big enough for us to have different opinions, so no problem.

I am in favour of minimal censorship, next to zero: The only case I would say it is needed is when libellour remarks have been made, and that is only to protect Max as the owner of the site. As for the rest, sexist or racist or hate-mongering and name-calling posts don't worry me; I am old enough to ignore them and form an opinion about the posters - just like in the 3-D world, really. There is no better antidote than to ignore such rubbish and those that peddle it.

I was rather hoping for some answers from El Greko about which of El Greko's conflicting posts we should take notice of. Perhaps neither?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 01:10 PM

Perhaps you could treat them the same way we do yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 01:27 PM

Pish tush George, such things as centennial postings are far beneath my dignity, and are the stuff of the junior school playground!
Giok ¦¬]

BTW Glad you liked it...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 02:23 PM

Come on, Roger, smile, your face won't crack.... I replied earlier today. If you are still unsatisfied with the reply, I cannot help it - you'll have to remain so.

Life's too short. Folk clubs to go to, choruses to sing, people to meet and....

...smile.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 02:07 AM

Jon - I feel that you owe me an apology?

I belieive shables (unusual) ommision of the names of posters is soley due to the fact that shambles is quite aware that his argument would become nonsensical had they been included but by ommision, he had another oppertunity to shit stir.

For what you choose to believe - and inform others - is not supported by the facts.

If you had taken the trouble to look back a little in this thread - to my post Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM - you would have seen that I had already posted the quotes and the names of the posters I referred to.....

A fact that makes all of your post 'nonsensical'. I won't go on to make any judgement of your possible motives for posing this factually incorrect nonsense.......I will leave others to judge.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 03:12 AM

Come on, Roger, smile, your face won't crack.... I replied earlier today. If you are still unsatisfied with the reply, I cannot help it - you'll have to remain so.

Whatever makes you think that I am not currently wearing a very big smile?
As for being 'unsatisfied with the reply' - as there was no reply to my question - there is nothing for any of us to be unsatisfied with.........Or is there?

Can I remind you of some of your earlier posted personal judgements of me - whilst jumping on the bandwagon and also claiming to speak for others?

Typical Shambolic evasiveness:

That is what annoys people more than anything, Roger - your eel-like slithering out of the way of some questions and answering instead with another (irrelevant to the topic) question.

Perhaps if I re-phrase my question - in the light of the following?

Anything I ever wrote as El Greko, that's me - George Papavgeris, Olga's son - and I stand by it, and I can be taken to task for it.

For what it is worth - which of these two rather conflicting views both posted by El Grecko - is George - Olga's son - NOT going to stand by?

1 Absolute freedom is open to absolute abuse and would destroy this forum. Normal rules of civility should apply, and where they do not, the clones should be allowed to trim offending or time-wasting (or disk space-wasting) texts.

2 I am in favour of minimal censorship, next to zero: The only case I would say it is needed is when libellour remarks have been made, and that is only to protect Max as the owner of the site.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 03:39 AM

Jon - I feel that you owe me an apology?

Yes Shambles, while I do believe you are wrong on many things in this censorship buisiness, there is no doubt that I was wrong in my last post and my accusation in this instance has proved unfounded and therefore wrong.

For that, yes I do owe you an apology and offer one. I am also prepeared to apologise for calling you someone who bullies barmaids as despite of your approach, I don't seriously belive you would do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 04:31 AM

Thank you Jon.

Barmaids are in fact - quite safe in my hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 05:18 AM

When I look very closely at the two quotes by El Greko I fail to see any contradiction.

Shambles, I don't know whether you smile or laugh during the day, but in these threads here you come over as unsmiling and as someone who can't take a joke about your pet theme.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 06:01 AM

Thanks Wolfgang. Roger, I'm done on the subject, my responses are there for all to see. I stand by both these quotes you mention. If you find them contradictory, choose one to believe - or neither.

It matters little, because as I said twice already, life has more to offer. Example: I have just got hold of the new Dan McKinnon album. Dilemma: Should I listen to this album by one of my favourite songwriters, or should I spend time delving into ever more detail to provide additional clarification/information for those who have not yet understood my postings?

Easy choice - headphones on, and catch you later.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 07:15 PM

When I look very closely at the two quotes by El Greko I fail to see any contradiction.

Just keep them jokes coming Wolfgang - that was your best yet. What a hoot!


Dilemma: Should I listen to this album by one of my favourite songwriters, or should I spend time delving into ever more detail to provide additional clarification/information for those who have not yet understood my postings?

Not too much of delemma even for this poster - who is not a renown multi-tasker. I am sure that most of us can quite easily manage to do both.

And at the same time to be greatly amused at those who provide such poor excuses and pretend not to understand my postings - some of those who appear to have posted almost as much as I have - mainly in order to make personal judgements or simply to point out that they do not understand my postings.

Some indeed - who even take enormous trouble to originate an entire thread on the subject and to open a bogus new membership just to do this. Perhaps it would have been better for them in the first place to concentrate all their energies on the taxing task of listening to CDs rather than dividing their attention? Especially now seeing their sudden lack of interest in the subject?

I don't think there can be many posters who do not perfectly understand El Greko's postings (under all guises). Even if they may struggle with the possible motives for all of them and perhaps be a little amazed at his attempts to still try to occupy the moral high-ground.....And at the willingness of others to support him in this determined attempt - no matter how preposterous this attempt makes them look.

What a laugh!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 07:18 PM

Not sure if I would trust El Greko with any barmaids.......

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 04:15 AM

Moral high ground? Not me, Roger, I'm happy in the basement *grin*. And what better proof of this, than the fact that I rise to your repeated taunts and personal judgements (after all, you did just say that my "attempts to occupy the moral high ground..." are "preposterous". Whether correct or not, that looked like a judgement to me). But I forgot - you do not like personal judgements in public, so I probably misinterpreted that (strike two).

I did (briefly) consider staying away from the thread, and it almost made it to the bottom of the list a couple of times, but regular as clockwork you refresh it anyway, so what the heck...

The thing is, Roger, I would be the first to admit that my April Fool's joke was not such a great one; a little smile at best was all it was aiming at, no guffaws, no belly-laughs. I snared a couple of people, we exchanged PMs as virtual handshakes, and we moved on. But your insistence on taking umbrage and repeatedly trying to show what a silly joke it was, only serves to give it merit that it does not deserve.

If moral high ground is your aim (and I assume it is, as you brought it up in such a "hurt" fashion), I venture to suggest that digging does not provide the best route to it.

But as long as you dig, I'll bring my spade along.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 04:17 AM

...smiling all the while.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 04:23 AM

Oh, the barmaid thing - you're right not to trust me, Roger, I wouldn't know when to stop.

Drinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 09:09 AM

Shambles,

how does it come you sound so serious when trying to make a funny post and so funny when trying to make a serious post?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 02:03 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: El Greko - PM
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:36 AM

I happen to have met all three "bullies", GUEST, and my opinion is radically different to yours; I found them to be fair, erudite, logical and open-minded. But hey, the world is big enough for us to have different opinions, so no problem.

Perhaps there IS now - a real problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: flamenco ted - PM
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 08:45 AM

The Shambles is correct as usual.Nasty posts have stopped a lot of people I know from posting here anymore. I know they are reading, because we talk about various threads in the pub on a weekend. But they sure ain't going to post for fear of getting their heads bitten off.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 02:11 PM

Oh, no, there isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 02:18 PM

Oh yes there is.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 02:42 PM

It's behind you!!
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 12:52 PM

Mudcat nastiness

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 01:08 PM

your posting that link seems to be in direct contradiction of your most recent post on that thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 01:13 PM

I'd like to propose people just leave this thread (and the other Censorship Proposal one) to Roger as his blog on what censorship he sees going on. He seems to like to document it. Why not? And why do others need to comment?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 07:15 PM

I'd like to propose people just leave this thread (and the other Censorship Proposal one) to Roger as his blog on what censorship he sees going on. He seems to like to document it. Why not? And why do others need to comment?

Why not indeed? And perhaps Susan you could explain why you can't just leave this thread? And why you not only still need to post to refresh it - but question why others should need to comment and propose that THEY don't? .....For you should know the answer?

Well it could be worse.

I could take-up another membership, post under a different name and start a thread expressing a view - that was the complete opposite to the one that I actually held....That would appear now to be more acceptable form of freedom of expression on our forum - than expressing and evidencing a view that you actually and honestly held. At least with me - I do exactly what it says that I do on the tin - and you don't have to open the tin.

I would like to propose too. .....Susan - will you marry me?
I would also propose that perhaps all the now routine censorship be confined only to one thread.....(weak attempts at humour - inserted for the benefit of Wolfgang)? *Smiles*


The title that the originator gave to the following B/S (non-music) thread was changed.

I blame the Romans…

It was thought important for some unknown reason - for some unknown but trusted volunteer to change the thread title to – I blame the Romans….(for Rabbits). Not sure that we can blame the Romans for this, or indeed the Greeks?

As this concerns me - I will do my best to bring attention (in this thread) to the routine tinkering to contributions like this and any other form of imposed censorship action - but as these seem to be increasing - I will not see them all. Perhaps when you see evidence of these - you could bring attention to them in this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 01:49 PM

Unless of course you would not feel safe in posting a view that could be thought in any way to be a criticism of the semi-official line of our current trusted volunteers and their supporters and also become the subject of their displeasure?

If that is the case - then you can send the details to me in a PM and I will post it here to inform other posters of the reality of what our public discussion forum has sadly now become.

For example.......

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-
From the following thread.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=56969#894819

---

Note that the above statement from Joe Offer was posted two years ago, in response to an anonymous poster who was flooding the forum with lengthy copy-paste messages that were available elsewhere on the Internet. Context is important.
The "Romans" thread should not have been renamed. I changed it back.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 04:21 PM

wysiwyg priceless! Did you really need to post to this thread to advise everyone else to stop posting? Would you ever take a bloody great step back and stop telling us what to do, how to think and what we mean. It is irritating in the extreme. Your arrogance is boundless.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 07:36 AM

Context is important.

But whatever the context - a threat (from our trusted volunteers) - still remains a threat.

Abusive personal attacks upon fellow posters from our trusted volunteers remain abusive persoanal attacks - whatever provocation is claimed. If it is possible for the majority of posters to ignore or not to respond in kind to obvious provocation - it should be possible for our trusted volunteers to also set this example.

Anonymous posting is thought a problem by our anonymous volunteers - but according to the new Mudcat logic - anonymous deleting by them upon fellow posters - is not.

It is now accepted that it was WRONG for the anonymous volunteer to change the Romans title as Joe Offer has now decided to change it back. What steps are being taken to ensure that this particular anonymous and out-of-control - but still trusted volunteer - does not behave WRONGLY again?

Is it time for a complete review all of the current censorship and to change it from something that threatens to divide Mudcatters - to something more fair, open and with a clear objective that all posters can support equally?

---

When mistakes are made, they will be corrected. That seems to be an adequate solution. It's well-nigh impossible to anticipate and prevent every mistake and miscommunication. Since no lives are at stake here, an occasional after-the-fact correction seems to be the appropriate remedy.
As for my statements that are quoted out of context years after I made them, I have no reason to even bother to defend myself. Shambles views my statement as a threat. I see it as a strongly-worded explanation to a repeat offender of the consequences of noncompliance with our prohibition against lengthy non-music copy-pastes. It was a serious problem at the time, so a strong response was appropriate. It seems ludicrous to wait until now to question my two-year-old statement, and certainly unfair to quote me out of context. Maybe I should be happy that Shambles can find nothing but the distant past to complain about.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 11:15 AM

LOL.

Shambles-- God forbid if anyone should have a fresh thought-- to be continuing to reflect on a matter and actually progress to a better thought-- that it should be posted as a suggestion others might consider!

Guest baiting me again-- Oy, to be sure-- off with my head! :~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 12:53 PM

Baiting? Just pointing out your arrogance. Call it what you will. I see you have posted yet again to this thread, even after your wonderful idea that we should all stop. Real conviction.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 04:31 PM

My wonderful idea was basically that one approach would be to not argue with what is basically a personal journal. Regarding arrogance, I aspire to someday merit that description, but I am not there quite yet. ;~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 04:37 PM

I'd like to propose people just leave this thread (and the other Censorship Proposal one) to Roger as his blog on what censorship he sees going on. He seems to like to document it. Why not? And why do others need to comment?

~S~

No wysiwyg your proposal was as I previously stated.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 07:47 PM

Joe Offer says here (in brown writing inserted into an existing post here as an editing comment in order to make his usual excuses - but not to refresh this thread and which you may have missed seeing).

When mistakes are made, they will be corrected. That seems to be an adequate solution. It's well-nigh impossible to anticipate and prevent every mistake and miscommunication. Since no lives are at stake here, an occasional after-the-fact correction seems to be the appropriate remedy.

Is it time for a complete review all of the current censorship and to change it from something that threatens to divide Mudcatters - to something more fair, open and with a clear objective that all posters can support equally?

Joe we are agreed that no lives are at stake here. So in order to prevent all the volunteer's mistakes and miscommunications that I have been bringing attention to - and you have been providing the same excuses for - could the poster's agreement be first sought before any change is imposed by you or your anonymous volunteers, upon the invited contribution of fellow posters?

---

I've answered that one already, Shambles. Threads are community property, not the property of the originator. Thread name changes are made for the good of the community, to help people know what's inside a thread. The volunteer who changed the "Roman" thread went too far, so the change was corrected. As far as I can determine, no harm was done except for the ruffling of a few Shamblesfeathers. Nobody else seemed to care. Therefore, I figure it must not be something worth worrying about.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 08:08 PM

Shambles-- God forbid if anyone should have a fresh thought-- to be continuing to reflect on a matter and actually progress to a better thought-- that it should be posted as a suggestion others might consider!

Susan - that is all - and exactly what - I have been trying to do now for the past 4 years!

You have seen all the hysterical reactions to these fairly modest suggestions of mine - (from the usual suspects and have even taken part) - so you should not be too surprised at any less than positive reception now given to your opinion expressed honestly on a discussion forum.

Perhaps you should follow the example of others here and start-up another membership and say the same things under a different name? That and posting (and deleting) anonymously - now seems to be acceptable on our forum. Or 'back-door' posting in way that will not refresh the thread (but that is not an option open to all Mudcatters)?

Or you could resist the temptation to post at all to a thread that is not to your taste and find another one that may be?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,pinion
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 03:41 AM

Nobody reads this stuff anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 10:04 AM

No - nobody reads this stuff - or ever posts to refresh it. And the only one that does read this stuff makes sure that when he does post - he does not refresh the thread..*Smiles*...Again the following was inserted as an editing comment and you may have missed it.

I've answered that one already, Shambles. Threads are community property, not the property of the originator. Thread name changes are made for the good of the community, to help people know what's inside a thread. The volunteer who changed the "Roman" thread went too far, so the change was corrected. As far as I can determine, no harm was done except for the ruffling of a few Shamblesfeathers. Nobody else seemed to care. Therefore, I figure it must not be something worth worrying about.
-Joe Offer-

Joe I make no claim that threads and thread titles are the property of the originator - but they are not your property either are they?

But threads and thread titles are also not the property of anonymous volunteers to impose changes upon when they wish - no matter how noble their aims might be.

1. If these threads and thread titles are community property and you say that any proposed changes are for the good of the community - is there any good reason why the originator would not be prepared to agree to any proposed change and why these equally valid members of the community should not be first asked?

2. If these threads and thread titles are community property and you say that any proposed changes are for the good of the community - should any changes be imposed upon invited contributions - without this prior agreement from these equally valid members of the community?

What is worth worrying about is that this errant but still 'trusted' anonymous volunteer (who went too far) was worried enough to impose this change upon a thread title (for the good of the community)- but without showing the respect of asking the member of the community who chose the title - if they were in agreement.

3. Joe - in exactly what respect do you consider that this anonymous volunteer go 'went too far' resulting in the thread title having to to be corrected and changed-back? For you would seem to be holding a double standard of publicly supporting (or of excusing) both positions at the same time.

On a technical point - I notice that the imposed title change is still showing on the individual posts in that thread......

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 03:05 PM

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=80364&messages=2

Yet another change without the originator's knowledge or agreement.

'Or banjo' indeed......Banjo players never play second fiddle to anyone.

---

In the instance you cite, the thread title does not match the title of the first message, but it matches the title of the second one. It could well be that the thread originator changed the title of the introductory message. Message titles can be changed to anything the poster wishes, and I wish more people would take advantage of that feature - especially when posting lyrics (put ADD: plus the song title).
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 02:26 AM

Yes - despite the fact that the thread has not been refreshed - there has been yet another response.

In the instance you cite, the thread title does not match the title of the first message, but it matches the title of the second one. It could well be that the thread originator changed the title of the introductory message. Message titles can be changed to anything the poster wishes, and I wish more people would take advantage of that feature - especially when posting lyrics (put ADD: plus the song title).

It may well be this possibility but was this in fact the case? The use of the brackets - tends to suggest that it was not.....

As it was a guest - it was certainly the case that they were PMd and asked it they agreed to any change first.

If they wish to be helpful - perhaps our volunteers could just try to provide the answers to the requests - rather than tinkering and imposing titles changes?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 03:09 AM

Message titles can be changed to anything the poster wishes, and I wish more people would take advantage of that feature - especially when posting lyrics (put ADD: plus the song title).
-Joe Offer-

A wish is just that.....It is not a command or a requirement.

When you have led a horse to water - it is up to the horse whether they choose to drink or not. Now on our forum - it sometime seems - that the poor old horses head is being forced under the water.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 05:06 AM

You will find a fine joke from Brucie - comparing the various methods of the CIA, NYPD and the FBI - by clicking the following link.

Gallery of Mudcat Quotations

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 11:35 AM

To the top with you! You know The Shambles is right!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 12:49 PM

No that won't work.

With Joe's cunning plan to prevent you - by posting but not refreshing the thread - there is not much chance of you being able to claim the 700th post.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 03:14 PM

Oh, that's what Ted was trying to pull. I shoulda known. Very astute, Shambles.

As for Shambles' latest tack, he appears to assume that all editing is wrong, that every letter typed by a Mudcatter is sacrorosanct and must not be changed without the typist's permission. I will agree with him with regards to the sanctity of the text of individual messages, and we follow fairly strict procedures in how we edit messages. If a message violates the rules of conduct stated in the FAQ, we deal with that message in whatever way makes sense at the time. The volunteers who delete or edit messages that violate rules are required to report their actions to Max, Jeff, or Joe for review. Such actions are relatively rare - Max, Jeff, and Joe are usually the ones who handle them, but the volunteers deal with them in certain obvious situations. If you have questions about any of these actions, contact me privately - I'm the one who usually handles public contact - or you can contact Max or Jeff privately. We rarely discuss specific editing actions like this in public, because that just serves to advertise the problem we are trying to eliminate. And no, if somebody posts a personal attack or spam or a racist message, I'm not going to ask his or her permission to remove that message.

Most message editing actions aren't for conduct problems, however - they're simple things, like correcting spelling, format, HTML, or links; or perhaps adding the songwriter's name to lyrics. While we are also a social community and a forum for expression, Mudcat was originally and is still primarily a music information resource, and it is important that the information here is correct. If we were dealing with ten messages a day, perhaps it would be nice to ask a poster if I could correct his HTML or add a songwriter name to the lyrics he posted, but we have thousands of messages posted every day, and that sort of process would be cumbersome.

Here's a good example - Wolfgang's 1997 post of The King of Ballyhooley. I did significant editing of this thread yesterday. There were some mistakes and a missing line in Wolfgang's post, but his incomplete lyrics were incorporated into the Digital Tradition as he posted them. Cleod posted corrections in separate threads in 1998 and 1998, and the threads were missed and the corrections were not incorporated into the lyrics. I moved Cleod's two correction messages into the original lyrics thread, and incorporated the corrections (in bold typeface) into Wolfgang's original lyrics. I posted a message asking for additional corrections and for source information, and copy-pasted Malcolm's tune information from another thread. I crosslinked the other threads on the song, and closed them so that people would post to the main lyrics thread and not split the discussion. Finally, I changed the title of Wolfgang's thread from Lyr ADD to DT Correction, since the primary purpose of the thread is not to correct the Digital Tradition entry.

I suppose I could have asked Wolfgang for permission to do the lyrics correction and the thread title change and the renaming of his message tile category, but I'm sure he wouldn't object. Cleod hasn't posted since 2000, so it would be difficult to contact him/her for permission to combine the two one-message correction threads with the original lyrics thread. It would also be a cumbersome process to contact the originators and posters from the two closed request threads, to obtain their permission to close and redirect "their" threads. In actuality, if we had to get permission to do this sort of editing, we it would be just too complicated; and we wouldn't do it. I think that my editing work has resulted in a thread that gives a good body of information about the song. It took a lot of work to put all that together, but I think the result is valuable - and I think that it is highly unlikely that any of the posters involved will object to the editing. If they have objections, they are free to contact me. Note that the text of the messages involves is intact - except that corrections were added to Wolfgang's lyrics in bold type.

It took me an hour or so to do the editing work on these threads. I think we had seven threads on the song when I started, and I moved things around and condensed them to three. The one primary thread covering all the information we have collected on the song, so I closed the other two so we wouldn't split the discussion.

In this situation and in most editing situations, the process involves indexing and linking information so that is is more useful to our Mudcat community and to outside users. The information itself is rarely changed, although it may be retitled or augmented.

Please note that I am the only one who does this sort of thread consolidation. Max and Jeff do the higher-level technical stuff, but this project of indexing and consolidating information is mostly my bailiwick. The JoeClone volunteers handle little things here and there, but they do major projects like this only under direct supervision.

As for the thread title change Shambles supected, music for 2nd fiddle (or banjo), I checked with Jeff and he examined the thread - as I suspected, the thread title was not edited or changed. It is exactly what the thread originator posted.

I'm sorry, but I cannot take the time to investigate like this every time Shambles suspects that there has been an editorial action. I'll be happy answer questions from posters about their own messages, or from thread originators about the change of title of the threads they originated.

-Joe Offer-

#650, Ted!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 04:29 PM

Joe first I should say that I do appreciate the conventional nature of your last contribution. The fact that it was posted honestly - so that the thread is refreshed - is refreshing. Even such a small move back to one where posters behave and are treated equally and are shown respect and encouraged to show mutual respect - is to be welcomed.

I am still confused over the use of 'I' and 'we' and when your personal view begins and when this stops.

I'm sorry, but I cannot take the time to investigate like this every time Shambles suspects that there has been an editorial action.

The answer to this is pretty easy. You either don't impose any at all. Or if 'you' or 'we' do feel that ANY editing action is required - (preferably consulting the originator first) - this is always made clear by an editorial comment - that makes it clear that editing action has been imposed and the details of who judged this was required and the reasons why?

This is what I mean by making it open. If there is nothing to hide - why make it look as if there is? If there is no brown writing - we will all know that no editing action has been undertaken.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Apr 05 - 05:23 PM

Shambles, to determing the difference between "I" and "we" requires a modicum of intelligence. "I" is singular and refers to the speaker. "We" is plural, and refers to the speaker and various others, explained in the context when necessary.

This is not an issue here, and never has been. Please don't try to make it into one.


As for this convoluted sentence:The answer to this is pretty easy. You either don't impose any at all. Or if 'you' or 'we' do feel that ANY editing action is required - (preferably consulting the originator first) - this is always made clear by an editorial comment - that makes it clear that editing action has been imposed and the details of who judged this was required and the reasons why?
- I think I've answered it adequately, countless times before. What you propose is a very complicated process for approval of what is essentially a non-issue for most of us. Editorial actions ARE controlled - by Max, Jeff, and Joe. If you question an editorial judgment, consult with me. I am the one responsible for explaining that judgment. If we make an objectionable message disappear, we are not going to discuss that deletion publicly, but we are generally willing to answer private questions.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:31 AM

What you propose is a very complicated process for approval of what is essentially a non-issue for most of us.

There is nothing at all complicated in being open.

On what basis do you maintain that censorship on our forum (with 600+ posts on the subject in this thread alone and the countless others) is a non-issue for most of us'? It rather depends of what the question is.

Do you feel that you speak for 'most of us' here. And if you do - do you think that is enough? Should not you be really concerned about ALL of 'us'?

Censorship is thought very much an issue for you and your volunteers - who feel qualified to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters - so why do you think it should it be any less of an issue for most Mudcatters who are subject to it?

If there is nothing to hide - why make it look as if there is?

Joe what I publicly propose to our open forum here and you dismiss - is a very modest and sensible move for many reasons - will you at least consider it?

---

Yes, I did consider your proposal, Shambles - and I gave a thoughtful, well-reasoned response on more than one occasion. Now, can you find other people who will give thoughtful, well-reasoned responses in support of your proposal?

No, we have nothing to hide. What makes you think we have any reason to hide anything? Why would any of us bother to hide the editorial work we do? On the other hand, since we operate under a general atmosphere of trust and respect, why should we be required to document our every action as if we were under suspicion of committing a felony? Our editorial actions are tracked by Mudcat software and reviewed and controlled by Max, Jeff, and Joe - isn't that enough? Should I be compelled to post a lengthy public explanation of every HTML correction I make, every line break I add? Must I be required to post full details and defense of every personal attack, spam message, and racist post deletion I make? And if I were to do that, would it make sense? If you do not trust and respect the people who do the administrative work here, why in the world do you spend your time here?

I have to admit that there's something addictive here - something that drives me to respond to Shambles, against my better judgment. To me, my counter-arguments always seem to compelling, so logical, so satisfying, so polite... I feel so sure I'm going to win this game of chess, sooner or later. I'm just sure that one day Shambles is going to admit that I am absolutely brilliant. And then Shambles short-circuits the laws of logic and starts everything all over again.
Oh, well.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 04:09 AM

Well deduced Shambles,I am after the 7ooth post.

---

Yeah, but I got 650, fair and square.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 11:55 AM

It was looking as if we may get there Ted - but sadly Joe has decided to use his 'special powers' to continue to post but not refresh the thread.

Yes, I did consider your proposal, Shambles - and I gave a thoughtful, well-reasoned response on more than one occasion. Now, can you find other people who will give thoughtful, well-reasoned responses in support of your proposal?

I suspect not publicly - for they may not wish to expose themselves to the following sort of public thoughtful, well-reasoned response from you.

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-

On the other hand, since we operate under a general atmosphere of trust and respect, why should we be required to document our every action as if we were under suspicion of committing a felony?

Joe it is clear that although you feel qualified to sit in often heavy judgement upon your fellow posters - you do not feel that you should be judged youself. It has become clear over time that you do not like to be judged - so why would you think that any of your fellow posters like to have your judgement - and the judgement of anonymous volunteers - imposed upon them any more than you would?

Yes I do think that you and your band of volunteers should be expected to be accountable to the rest of this community - just as the rest of the community are expected (by you) to be accountable.

For the main and simple reason that when public defence of all this judgement and secret measures are given by you on our forum - to a poster who may not have the best interests of our community at heart - I would like to be able to honestly and fully support this defence.........Sadly I find myself in agreement with the many logical arguments that these "trouble-makers" express and I find myself embarrassed at the bullying and strange reasoning that forms to corner stone of this defence.

Joe what is so very complicated about ensuring that an editing comment is always present - to indicate when and why editing action was imposed upon the invited contributions of a fellow contributor to our coumminity?

Posters do post defend the current system and state that the levels of censorship are 'about right'. However, I am not sure how this can be stated with much basis in reality - if these posters are not aware of what the true level of censorship is.

So I have tried here to demonstrate and evidence what the true level is. When ALL the community can see when ALL editing action has been imposed - they will be a better position to judge - whether this is acceptable or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 01:33 PM

You know, Shambles, Editorial comments ARE posted for most of the significant editorial actions. If you want evidence, do a search for "attempt to avoid splitting" or "multiple threads combined." We don't bother to document minor, obvious corrections or the deletion of duplicate messages - but we do document those that might cause confusion. We don't document thread title changes because the first two messages usually show what the original thread title was, if it has been changed. You have to look at the first TWO messages - not just one, like you did in an earlier message in this thread.

No, we're not going to document and explain and defend the deletion of offensive messages and the closing of combative threads, as you seem to imply we should. We wish to remove racism, personal attacks, and Spam from the Forum when we do that (judiciously). Documenting those removals would simply amplify and advertise the very problems we wish to eliminate or contain.

You know, this is like teaching my kid Algebra. I keep thinking if I keep explaining things clearly and calmly and logically, that the kid and Shambles will finally get it - but they never do. They keep going back to the same twisted logic, every time.

And I still have another whole year of Algebra to teach.

-Joe Offer-

655, Ted?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:42 PM

Thanks for conventionally posting so as the refresh the thread again. Although I suspect this was not through choice.....

No, we're not going to document and explain and defend the deletion of offensive messages and the closing of combative threads, as you seem to imply we should. We wish to remove racism, personal attacks, and Spam from the Forum when we do that (judiciously). Documenting those removals would simply amplify and advertise the very problems we wish to eliminate or contain.

There is no implication in my suggestion - it is very clear. I will leave others to judge your response and question if anyone else was consulted before you made it and spke on their behalf.

The same old rubbish is wheeled out again - about preventing racism
and protecting us from personal attacks - althought it is never explained who protects us from those that - you, your anonymous volunteers and their supporters indulge in and set the example of. Of course none of the reactive editing action does PREVENT any of this. It is the justification given for the general and now routine tinkering with and imposition on - the contributions of fellow posters without their knowledge or permission.

Perhaps if all these reactive racism and personal attack editing actions were made clear for all of the community to see - these would be seen by them to be so few - as to question if all these anonymous volunteers could really be justified?

Those who (for their own ends) would wish to rule us - have always found that the best way to stay in power - is to invent an outside enemy - for them to protact us from.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:50 PM

OLD TIME MUSIC IN THE PARK (UK)?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:53 PM

Mudcat problem   (Fun Web Products)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:58 PM

Music on the Gold Coast   (Queensland Australia)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 03:20 PM

Roger said: "Of course none of the reactive editing action does PREVENT any of this."

This is a (deliberate?) misinterpretation of what Joe said, which was: "We wish to remove racism, personal attacks, and Spam from the Forum when we do that (judiciously)." (italics Joe's)

Notice that Joe said, "remove," while Roger said, "prevent." Big difference there.

Try to be honest, Roger.

If you can.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 08:11 PM

heloo,
waht you favoiurit sort of cheese then?
i like that orange cheese [i forgot wahts called], and that other one=
that round one, like a ball, some times i eat bacon and cheese sand witches.

i dont like that spreading cheese much.


i got a ricipe=
get mash popato, 1 tin of tuna, in a dish= mix it up, put cheese on top, and pt it ubder your grill,
and you could put tomatoes on it as well,
try it its really nice, and good for you as well.

you could put black pepper as well if you want.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Speaker
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 08:54 PM

Move to censor that post.

Can't be having recipies on a censorship thread...

(.. really, what's the world coming to...)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 20 Apr 05 - 10:30 PM

Calm down, Shambles. Now you're getting hysterical. I think you're beginning to see JoeClones descending upon your house in black U.N. helicopters, about to drag you forcibly into the One World Order by clicking their "delete" buttons at you.

You know, maybe you're right.....

They're coming to take me away, ha-ha
To the funny farm where life is beautiful
And I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats
And they're coming to take me away....

Paranoia must be lonesome, huh?

It's OK, Shambles. Just relax while we put this little jacket on you. See? Isn't it a nice jacket...


-Dr. Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 02:36 AM

Joe was that last post your view - or is it now official Mudcat policy to judge fellow posters of being mentally ill? For it is difficult to tell one view from the other. Are they now the same?

I am sure that if you had not been forced to post as a guest - these same comments would have been inserted as a (brown) editing comment.

Perhaps you now consider that - all the posters that you feel free to impose editing action upon - are mentally ill and that you know best what they were trying to say and can speak for them? I am suggesting that you ask these members of the community first - nothing too complicated or mentally unstable in that suggestion - is there?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 02:40 AM

Roger said: "Of course none of the reactive editing action does PREVENT any of this."

That is a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 02:54 AM

The following was inserted into this thread on : 20 Feb 03 - 09:25 PM.

Cut and paste prohibitions

I also stated that anonymous posting has become a problem, and I am seeking a solution. I asked that our Guests solve the problem themselves by simply using a consistent name and starting no more than one non-music thread per day.

Currently, there is no policy on this. We would like people to use common sense and common courtesy, but we have a few people who don't seem to understand those concepts.

Max and Jeff and I have never had any thought of deleting old threads, BS or Non-BS. We have occasionally had problems with people refreshing contentious old threads for the purpose of opening old wounds, so I have closed (but not deleted) a number of old threads, so that new messages cannot be posted. We also reserve the right to delete threads that appear to have been started simply for the purpose of attacking individuals or causing trouble. We do delete threads occasionally, but as seldom as we can.

-Joe Offer-

Since then - things would appear to have changed (and for the worse).

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 05:23 AM

I don't know about anybody else on Mudcat, but I'm f***ing fed up with this infantile sqabbling, and I'm surprised that people some of whom should know better are feeding the flames. All that is happening is people are giving each other ammunition to fire back in parenthesis and italics, what a futile waste of band width!!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 06:57 AM

Joe....As a friend......I know what you are trying to do and I certainly understand the frustration tinged with hope that you feel when trying to discuss anything with Shambles. You just know you'll get through somehow, but it never happens. Roger takes every item, breaks it into 37 pieces, throws 22 pieces away, rephrases the rest, and then puts it back together upside down and sideways until it can fit into his world. This is a lot like trying to teach an aardvark table manners........very cool if you could do it, but a complete waste of time because it just won't happen. No one knows why the aardvark can't learn manners even after the best efforts by everyone to show him. Perhaps he's stupid or perhaps he just can't deal with his paws which lack opposable thumbs. At the end of the day the aardvark doesn't care but you are a basket case and the fault of that belongs to you. Why in the hell are you trying to teach an aardvark table manners?

Look Joe, I've been trying to say this over and over, but as a mod anywhere else, you are already giving WAY too many explanations. Stop. Do what you have to do and skip the comments. Most people won't notice and most won't care. To any but the most pigheaded, it's obvious that this place is looser than Grannie's bloomers as far as moderation or censorship goes. Most forums would never tolerate a thread like this one. Most would have zapped Shambles long ago. I'm glad we haven't and that The 'Cat is as loose as it is but everything has a limit somewhere and one thing is certain...this thread and this non-discussion discussion has gone on far too long.

QUIT FUCKIN' WITH THE AARDVARK!

It reached the point long ago where it's obvious that Roger will accept no explanation that doesn't fit in Roger's World and the more you try the more he drags up the same things over and over. He himself has refused to answer the basic questions asked of him by myself and other members, such as "What did Max tell you?" Or, "Have you ever discussed this with Max and if so when?"   After all Joe, Max is the only one he would have to listen to and you and I both know that he won't do that either. So let him be the usual Ramblin' Shambles and write his tripe to his heart's content. You are beginning to look foolish for even trying to answer his imagined concerns. Fuck him. Well, don't go that far literally, but it's time to end this now!

If you feel you must have a windmill, I suggest the aardvark and table manners. Your odds are better.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 07:24 AM

The imagery is too strong, Spaw, I can't resist a cheap ditty - To the tune of "Beware of the bite of the underdog":

Beware of the suck of the aardvark,
His snout is lethal and too dangerous by far.
Beware of the suck of the aardvark,
He'll suck your logic and he'll leave you all ga-ga.
Too late now to change him or to teach him
Or try common sense to feed him piece by piece.
For life Joe can be very capricious,
And the suck of the aardvark is vicious.
And so the time will come around when in details you will drown
And that's the time when you find against your wishes
All you've achieved is to disturb your own peace.

Ta-tarararah-boom-boom!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 07:56 AM

If you do not trust and respect the people who do the administrative work here, why in the world do you spend your time here?

I certainly did have that trust and respect. That is one reason why I have contributed so positively to our forum for so long and intend to try to continue to do so.

But this was when it was accepted that it was a matter for all the community to encourage but not judge the worth of the invited contributions of the public. Not for our administrators to sit in judgement on every nit-picking aspect of these contributions - from the title chosen to the spelling used - and then demand our trust and respect for this.

It now seems that posters are told by the administrators that if they don't trust the (anonymous) administrators - they should go away!

When the tail starts to wag the dog - perhaps it is time that those administrators - who so obviously do not now trust and respect (or even accept) the people who Max has invited to post here (without all these new rules) - were asked to spend their time elswhere and leave the rest of us in peace?

In truth - it may be difficult for any of us to respect and trust the occasional extreme contribution. But as their is no way to prevent such things from being posted (except by being set and following a good example and never responding in kind) - we can perhaps just leave it to Max's personal judgement - if he wishes it to remain on his site?

As to the other now routine 'tinkering' with thread titles etc. It may be accepted that the reasoning behind these may be well-intentioned. But as a general rule and in order to show respect and trust - cannot it be that such changes are only undertaken with the poster's consent and never have a fellow poster's judgment imposed upon it?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Giok
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 09:09 AM

What I think would open a few peoples' eyes is for Joe, and other clones to publish the PMs they get complaining about threads and their contents [Minus the senders name of course]. I don't know for sure but I would guess that they amount to more than a hill of beans, so he's getting pressure from both sides. Then there's the fact that you have a name and a PM system to use as a means of contacting moderators. Many sites don't give names or contact details, and you've got to like it or lump it.
What Spaw says is spot on, remember that the best thing about banging your head off a brick wall is when you stop.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Anastasia
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 09:17 AM

Two questions, The Shambles:

What percentage of your day is taken up on tyhis subject?
Have you not got anything better to do?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 10:05 AM

Don't you know that it is official?

Roger isn't the problem anymore. Those that feed him are.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,jeffp
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 10:22 AM

Two questions, The Shambles:

What percentage of your day is taken up on tyhis subject?
Have you not got anything better to do?

Reasonable questions. Why are you ducking them?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 10:34 AM

Us AARDVARKS are just really terrible like that - I guess....

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,jeffp
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 10:42 AM

Demonstrating that you are not really interested in dialogue, but rather monologue.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 10:45 AM

Yes - I shouldn't waste your time on us 'Earth Pigs'.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,jeffp
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 12:02 PM

True

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 01:44 PM

Are these here monologues as tasty as termites?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2676377.stm

From the above site.

The ancient ancestor of all mammals that give birth to live young - including humans - probably had genetic similarities with the aardvark. The elusive African mammal is a close match to our early cousin in the way its DNA is packaged into distinct bundles, or chromosomes, say scientists.

The last common ancestor of all placental mammals - possibly a shrew-like creature - scurried over the planet hundreds of millions of years ago. It was probably nothing like the modern-day aardvark but could have had a similar set of chromosomes.


All mammals essentially had one common ancestor if you go back in distant time
Prof Terence Robinson

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 06:27 PM

Now after lovin' me late at night
When it's good for you, babe
And you're feelin' alright
Well you just roll over and turn out the light
And you don't bring me aardvarks anymore

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 06:33 PM

Aardvark never killed anybody
G

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 06:42 PM

"Those who (for their own ends) would wish to rule us - have always found that the best way to stay in power - is to invent an outside enemy - for them to protact us from." Roger/ The Shambles

Recognize the man in the mirror, Roger?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 06:58 AM

I saw no synthesis between poetry and ideology, save perchance, the dialectic between chance and reason... oh... sorry... wrong thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 07:14 AM

Ted - you may just make 700th yet?


Recognize the man in the mirror, Roger?

No just this bloody Arrdvark looking back at me..... [Does someone who calls himself The Shambles - really need to be called any further names?]

Ebbie - I have no wish to have any more power than any other poster. Perhaps it would be wise for you to be a little more suspicious of - and openly question - those who do wish to have more power than other posters?

The facts remain as I evidence here. As I ask is that you and others judge from this evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 07:41 AM

Poll-Stop Flaming and Abusive Posting (Closed)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 08:47 AM

The Shambles
The Shambles is a bank with several shoal heads three miles East of Portland Bill which should be avoided at all times. In response to numerous requests from the Admiralty and shipowners, Trinity House placed two navigation buoys over the bank in 1824 which were later replaced by a lightvessel in 1859. Today the Shambles Bank is marked by the red sector light from Portland Bill lighthouse and lighted buoys at the east and western extremes of the bank.
The waves go higher than I thought
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 08:54 AM

No no Shambles, I simply posted on the wrong thread. I was looking for pseuds corner. As if I would post simply to beat Leadfingers to the 700th!!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 09:30 AM

I

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 09:30 AM

am

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 09:31 AM

sure you

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 09:32 AM

wouldn't,

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 09:33 AM

Ted.
(a little help from your friends)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 09:39 AM

Ta El Greek type person, I will be magnanimous and leave the 700th for Lead Head.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 09:47 AM

But then again.......

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 09:48 AM

go for it

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 10:55 AM

School's out again!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 11:04 AM

Thanks for the post though, you miserable sod!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 11:10 AM

On your marks...........

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 11:11 AM

Preferred you under the pseudenym George!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 11:12 AM

700

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 11:47 AM

Sorry, Ted. I think you miscounted...

Looks like Giok slipped in ahead of you. Sneaky son-of-a-gun, isn't he?
I feel your pain, Ted, but it appears you lost this one. 750 is a really significant number, though....
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Apr 05 - 12:06 PM

Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?   [Closed]

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 02:36 AM

Why the 'tinkering' with these? Were any of the originators of these two threads consulted before all these change was imposed? Is a fine folk artist and writer not allowed by our volunteers to have their own separate thread for folk to comment on their passsing? Or as many threads as individual posters may wish to start?

Is it really showing posters (and the subject) respect? And is it so important to interfere with threads in this manner and for volunteers to impose their personal prefences upon fellow posters?

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=80498&messages=104>Cyril Tawney Obit   [21 April 2004]

Messages from multiple threads combined. Most of the messages below are from a new thread.
-Joe Offer-

At least there was a editing comment to say this change had been imposed - but this fact would have been rather obvious anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 02:38 AM

Cyril Tawney Obit   [21 April 2004]

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 02:54 AM

RE: Lyr Req: 'A Thousand Years Today' (Paul Metser)

Changes on the title of this one were imposed twice!

The helpful first reply from open mike (below) was surely enough to ensure that the poster be encouraged, would not be inhibited from posting again and next time they would have posted a more informative title? Without any need for any volunteers to impose any changes?

Subject: RE: Lyr Req: Lyrics Request
From: open mike - PM
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 08:55 PM

you will be more likely to get a reply if you specify the title of the
song in the title of the thread. (Lyric Request is already labelled as such if you specify that) Welcome to Mud cat and i hope you find
the song. there may be a helper/editor who can fix this for you..
this is an amazing place--glad to have you here.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 03:02 AM

This thread title was thought to be perfectly sufficient for 4 years!

Lyr Req: Oh, I was born... [Lunatic's Lullaby]

---

Music threads are routinely retitled and consolidated and cross-indexed as part of our indexing process, to help make it easier for people to find songs by song title or songwriter name. If space permits, the original thread title is retained, with clarifying words added. Non-music threads are occasionally retitled for clarity, but the need to retitle non-music threads does not arise as frequently because non-music threads are not used for reference.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 03:34 AM

Is a fine folk artist and writer not allowed by our volunteers to have their own separate thread for folk to comment on their passsing?

Isn't that exactly what he has in "Cyril Tawney Obit"?

Each to their own of course but it makes more sense to me to have all the obit messages in one thread rather than having them scattered between 2 threads. The closed (illness) thread contains a link to the thread so it is easy enough follow from one thread to another.

I don't suppose I'd agree with every thread title change, movement of message, etc. (any more than I would agree with every single other editing action) but I neither expect to or need to nor would bother kicking up a fuss it a post of mine was moved or a thread was retitled.

One of the criticisms I had about Mudcat was the difficulties in going back to find information because posts were spread out into multiple threads, some threads contained more than one topic, meaningless thread titles, etc. As such, I think efforts towards making "research" easier are to be applauded.

I suppose it does depend on how you view Mudcat - as a place just for conversation or as a place that allows conversation but also an archive of knowledge. I know Joe is of the same school of thought as me but I would also assume the actions are approved of from above - I can't think why the ability to cross reference threads and the ability to move threads were added by Jeff (under the authority of Max) otherwise - I know of no-one who would program in new facilites that they don't want to be used.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 04:40 AM

Music threads are routinely retitled and consolidated and cross-indexed as part of our indexing process, to help make it easier for people to find songs by song title or songwriter name. If space permits, the original thread title is retained, with clarifying words added. Non-music threads are occasionally retitled for clarity, but the need to retitle non-music threads does not arise as frequently because non-music threads are not used for reference.
-Joe Offer-

Yes it is mostly well-intention but perhaps it is as well to forget the fancy words and the 'spin'? Routine censorship imposed by anonymous volunteer posters - upon the invited contributions of fellow posters - without their prior knowledge or permission is what we are talking about here.

My main point is that "our" indexing process does not seem to involve obtaining the agreement of the contributors. When the issues here - like whether a thread is combined into one - left as the poster made it - or have a link to others - are largely a question of personal taste - as Jon's post indicates.

The question is - whose personal taste? Why not mine, Jon's or your's?

As you can't please all of the people all of the time - perhaps it is better that the personal tastes of each contributor are respected and any changes to their contribution are only made with their agreement?   

We could all argue forever about the merits of each imposed change - (that is why it is better not to impose one's personal taste and judgement upon others). But Jon mentioned the Cyril Tawney thread so I will express my personal view on that imposed change.

A link to the two threads would have been better as one was started when he was alive (if very ill) and the others was started after his death. The originator of the later thread - did have the option of refreshing an existing one - but chose to start a new one.

Perhaps poster's freely made choices like this - can be respected by all our volunteers (especially the anonymous ones) - from now on?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 04:59 AM

Roger, you said "My main point is that "our" indexing process does not seem to involve obtaining the agreement of the contributors. When the issues here - like whether a thread is combined into one - left as the poster made it - or have a link to others - are largely a question of personal taste - as Jon's post indicates..

It is a logical point, but not a practical one, for the same reason that libraries do not obtain the authors' or publishers' permission when they index their material, but they do the indexing according to their own, often arbitrary rules. But we live with that, even if sometimes you find Terry Pratchett variously under "Comedy", or "Science Fiction", or whatever. If the author or publisher feels strongly about the indexing of their work, they can complain and in some cases (not always) effect a change. Most importantly, nobody accuses the libraries of high-handedness for this practice.

If we can live with this practice in the more important world of books and libraries, I contend that we can certainly do so in a web forum.

Your point would be good for a perfect world, where there is ample time to take care of details. In the imperfect world we are landed with, we compromise, because life is too short for the alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 06:12 AM

The indexing of a library's contents - do not involve re-naming the author's titles to the personal tastes of those employed by the library. I suspect these individuals would not be employed for very long - if they attempted such an impractical thing which showed so little respect for their authors.

If it were a matter of accepting an imperfect world - would any attempt to improve it be equally futile?

I think that I am asking for acceptance of this imperfect world - where contributors say and do what they wish and not what someone would prefer they said or did.

I am not asking that these changes do not take place - simply that they are not imposed without the poster's knowledge or agreement. That is not expecting any sort of world perfection. It is simply asking that all contributions be equally respected - as generally they have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 06:20 AM

It is simply asking that all contributions be equally respected - as generally they have been.

They are in the sense that all contributions may be subject to editorial action performed by the people entrusted by Max to perform such tasks,

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 06:46 AM

What is so wrong with the advanced search?

It would seem that - without any imposition by any anonymous volunteers upon fellow posters (without their knowledge or agreement) - it is now perfectly possible (using this facility) to find anything that any poster could possibly wish to find on our forum.........

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 07:01 AM

Such as.....

0.7967 - Thread - Message - RE: Cyril Tawney - Dec 1 2002 9:56PM -   Joe Offer
Summary: Somebody mentioned Stanley the Rat in a thread, and that motivated me to cross-index all our Cyril Tawney threads and songs. For me, Cyril Tawney was one of the high points of Whitby Folk Week this year, and I made a point to see him several times during the week. He's like an overgrown elf, with a perpetual twinkle in his eye.

Were this an artist that was not to Joe Offer's personal taste - perhaps they would not have been subject to the special treatment that Joe Offer decided to give to Cyril? In that case - they or their supported may think The Mudcat Forum is subject to the personal tastes of one contributor...........?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 07:39 AM

What is so wrong with the advanced search?

There is not a lot wrong with the search facilities here, Only problem is if you have 20 threads on a subject they might find 20 threads for a user to wade through whereas if threads are combined a user has fewer and it's much easier reading through one consolidated thread that skipping through several.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 12:14 PM

"We could all argue forever about the merits of each imposed change..."...yup...seems like forever already.

- "(that is why it is better not to impose one's personal taste and judgement upon others)"...nope...contrawise. That is why it is better to have a limited number of 'editors' acting on one one basic set of guidelines.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 12:43 PM

You only require one 'editor' imposing arbitary judgements based on their persoanl taste - for us to argue forever about the merits of each imposed change. That is what it appears that we have been doing ever since this routine imposition was introduced and what we will continue to do - if there is not a review and a change.

If these changes to thread titles and general tinkering are thought to be needed - why was the imposed change to the 'Romans' thread thought by Joe Offer to be going too far - and changed back by him? This as a result of his personal opinion and taste - when in the personal opinion and taste of the still and equally trusted volunteer - it was a change that required to be imposed.

To avoid all of this - perhaps it will be better from now on for us to have no 'editor' and to leave what a poster chooses to say - as a mattter for them only? And for our volunteers to concentrate on enabling this by only responding to requests from posters for changes to their own contributions? Max himself can judge if he wishes the few extreme contributions to remain on his website

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 12:56 PM

Max, himself, already judged that he wanted a few editors, with one chief editor. Most everyone seems to be happy with that arrangement...only one member chews on the issue until it is ragged and soggy.

But, a boy needs a hobby......

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 01:00 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Ratzinger is the new Pope
From: Tam the man - PM
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 11:27 AM

Why are these 'guests' frightend to give their names, as I say these 'guests' are cowards.

I mean if you're going to run down everyone on this site including please have the balls to give a name.

As it is clear that anonymous posting never has and never will be generally thought a good thing - perhaps the idea that it is OK for anonymous volunteers - (who are not prepared to use their name) to impose their judgement on fellow posters - (who are) - can be reviewed?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 04:04 PM

The indexing of a library's contents - do not involve re-naming the author's titles to the personal tastes of those employed by the library. I suspect these individuals would not be employed for very long - if they attempted such an impractical thing which showed so little respect for their authors.

After posting the above - I had to smile when I saw these two thread titles together.

Self-test For Literature Abusers   
Censorship on Mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Veteran Member
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 05:17 PM

This thread is getting a bit like Little Hawk's process for making "Shatner" into a Mudcat icon-- LH deliberately repeated the name/concept frequently enough that it would become part of Mudcat reality that Wiliam Shatner IS an icon. He says himelf that he set out to do just that. And it worked.

Now it's Shambles, attempting to construct a negative icon. See him including references in nearly every post now that what Joe does when he edits is "impose his personal taste."

I don't think Joe actually does that.... instead, as an editor should, he does a pretty good job of reflecting the broad diversity of Mudcat when he consolidates and retitles things.

That's exactly what an editor is supposed to do. Anyone who does that job in any setting carries that responsibility. They are entrusted with that responsibility because they will be loyal NOT to their personal tastes and opinions, but to the task they have been given and the tastes of the material's market.

I think Shambles actually has hurt feelings over a very few editing actions and editor's insertions that had to do with his own posts, and that he's using the hurt as a basis for slanting his evaluation of ALL Joe does. He's not honest enough to say he felt hurt, and launches a censorship battle instead. To equate hurt feelings and "the sky is falling" over "lost freedom" is really not fair play.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 05:27 PM

Is that El Greko again?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 05:44 PM

from what I've see, El Greco has no problem signing his posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 06:23 PM

Perhaps you don't see quite so well these days Bill?

Mudcat Censorship - a proposal

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 06:58 PM

No, the last GUEST wasn't me, Roger. And the example to which you so inappropriately refer is of an April Fools, including the retraction after midday. 3+ weeks later, it's a great way to support paranoia, but not to support an argument.

Relax, I am not out to get you - Xander will not post again until 1st April 2006. But I don't guarantee that he won't be rearing his bigoted head again next April Fools... you have been warned, everybody!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Same Veteran Member
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 07:12 PM

Using one widespread paranoia (see 2 below) to distract people from your own (see 1 below), Shambles? Verrrry cleverrrr.

Main Entry: para·noia
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek, madness, from paranous demented, from para- + nous mind
1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:25 AM

He's not honest enough to say he felt hurt, and launches a censorship battle instead. To equate hurt feelings and "the sky is falling" over "lost freedom" is really not fair play.

I am however 'honest' enough to 'honestly' express and evidence my view and 'honest' enough to inform fellow posters of my identity. If folk do not choose to post openly and choose to remain anonymous - perhaps they should not judge and accuse others - of dishonesty, of not playing fair - or accuse them of anything else?

In truth is there much left to accuse me of, blame me for or names that I have not already been called?

If it is not 'The Greek' bearing yet more gifts and pretending to be someone else - I wonder who our 'veteren guest can be then? But I won't wonder for very long. Perhaps we can return to the discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 03:26 AM

They are entrusted with that responsibility because they will be loyal NOT to their personal tastes and opinions, but to the task they have been given and the tastes of the material's market.

Again a view that is NOT supported by the facts. If you do an Advanced Search on Birthday Threads for example – you will find much real evidence to the contrary. These interesting posts do tend to support the idea of The Mudcat Forum being 'taken-over' and now thought to be subject to the personal tastes and opinions of our volunteers. Including the following......

0.7742 - Thread - Message - RE: BS: HB to MAX!!! - Apr 24 2004 5:39PM - catspaw49
Summary: BTW, this post is a product of Joe Offer so if you have a complaint, talk to your boy Joe. 'Course now, Ol' Joe will be around and say that's not true and Happy Birthday Max and all of that crappola. Geeiz Max, you really created a monster with Joe.

Now I am not calling anyone a monster - but I find myself agreeing with Catspaw - when he does and remain safe - (for he can do and say what he pleases - no matter how abusive). Well said Spaw old Buddy! Attaboy etc, etc. LOL.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 03:54 AM

Context, Roger, it's all in the context, which you left out - accidentally I am sure, because you are not a manipulative, pick-what-suits-me-to-attack-Joe kind of person, I am sure.

The paragraph you chopped continues as follows: "...I mean have you ever seen the terrible things he says to poor Shambles? Poor Sham has to write 97 pages to try and explain and even then Joe doesn't understand. Come to think of it, at that point no one understands.....but the fault is still Joe's.

Are you telling the world with your post that you can really not tell that this was a joke by catspaw? Or are you haveing your own little joke and you are pulling our strings for fun? If the latter, then - good one, Roger.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 04:14 AM

Shambles. Mudcat can only be taken over if Max allows it to be taken over.

As for Joe's "dislike" of birthday threads, he has made his personal feelings known for at least as long as I have been posting here. I notice that the thread you quoted from remains open with no evidence of censorship.

Surley this example proves exactly what you are trying to disprove. Joe has not acted on personal feelings...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 04:22 AM

....but much to Joe's chagrin, his opposition to birthday threads has become a running joke at Mudcat. Joe refuses to reveal when his bithday is. However, after several pints of strong ale at a pub in Yorkshire, he did reveal that he was born sometime in mid-August. Ever since, he has been plagued by birthday threads, during the entire month of August every year.
Khandu has....well, don't get me started on khandu...
[grin]
So much for Joe having control over anything.
-Joe offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 04:30 AM

El Greko - I had never read that post in full - (as I made clear) I just quoted what appeared in the Avanced Search. But I did not miss much - as I have seen such comments many times before.


Jon - are you really trying to tell us that posters have not been inhibited from starting and taking part in Birthday threads?


More evidence of the current (and continuing) shambles.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=80579&messages=10>where did my thread go bout murder in NY?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 04:38 AM

Oops!

where did my thread go bout murder in NY?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 04:55 AM

Jon - are you really trying to tell us that posters have not been inhibited from starting and taking part in Birthday threads?

Shambles, I was telling you that the evidence you provided pointed to Joe not taking any action over a type of thread he doesn't care much for.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 05:13 AM

More evidence of the current (and continuing) shambles.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=80579&messages=10>where did my thread go bout murder in NY?

What evidence Shambles? As far as I can make out, Joe was mopping up and trying to make the best of a situation caused by someone not understanding the system.

When I try to trace what happened. We open with.

Subject: Tune Req: 60 or 70 song about the murder in NY
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 05 - 08:51 PM

There was a song about the true murder of a woman in the NY streets where everyone just watched and now once call the police for her. Anybody know the name of the song and the group that sang it.

A copule of days later, we have another request - presumably by the same person.

Subject: Lyr Req: Murder in NY in the 60's
From: GUEST,ghindy2002
Date: 21 Apr 05 - 08:40 PM

Anyone know what the name of the song is about the woman that was murdered in the streets of NY in the 60's when everyone watched from there windows and no one called the police...it is a true story. Can anyone help?

The same person then appears to have lost both previous posts and started.

Subject: Lyr Req: where did my thread go bout Murder in NY
From: ghindy
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 07:57 PM

Where did my thread go about the song that reference the true murder of the woman in the treets of NY? I came back the next day and couldnt find the thread... what the heck here?

As far as I can make out that rather than have 3 threads started by the same person on the same subject running at the same time, Joe sensibly (IMO) opted to make one thread current for all replies. You may also care to note.

Subject: RE: Lyr Req: where did my thread go bout Murder in NY
From: ghindy
Date: 24 Apr 05 - 08:06 PM

maybe Im getting the hang of this.. I found the traces of the replys to the other threads. I guess I will stop the murder and not mention this one again. Thanks to everyone

The poster understood where (s)he had made a mistake and thanked everbody. Far from being the shambles you suggest, it looks to me to be a "user messup" resolved quite neatly and amicably.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 05:17 AM

I seem to be forgetting to supply a name. Last 2 Guests were me...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 05:55 AM

Thanks, Jon. So we're in an evidence-free zone as regards Joe's misdeeds.

Roger, if this was a court of law and you were the prosecuting attorney, I believe the judge would have thrown the case out long ago (Richard Bridge could tell us about that). And if you were persisting in producing more flimsy non-evidence of this kind, he might have even charged you with contempt of court or wasting the court's time.

(bracing myself for the next avalanche of "evidence" now...) ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 05:59 AM

Of course, Roger could accuse Joe then of oppression - as in "by mentioning his dislike of birthday threads he inhibits the rest of us from offering birthday wishes to fellow 'catters".

This is oppressive indeed. Couldn't sleep last night for worrying about it;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Veteran Member, Again
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 09:31 AM

Shambles, is it only "identified" Mudcatters you are willing to misquote and engage in endless smokescreening? Is this because you want to use certain members' popularity to make it seem like they agree with you (or should do so)?

I've chosen a name for this thread, so what is your problem with the freedom Max gives us to post as Guests? I've raised an issue. Why are you ducking it in favor of perpetuating people's feelings about Guests?

A little internal contradiction going on there-- which of Max's freedoms for us do you support, and which not?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 10:45 AM

Having been banned on over 22 international websites, why is it I have have never found an instance of censorship of any of my contributions on Mudcat?

It think this whole thing does not amount to a tempest in a shot glass.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 12:46 PM

Having been banned on over 22 international websites, why is it I have have never found an instance of censorship of any of my contributions on Mudcat?

Just because YOU don't get hit with a bullet.............Most folk don't really mind unpleasant things being imposed upon other people. Watching others fall victim is said to be the basis of all humour.....

And you call always call bullets somthing else. You can call genocide 'ethnic cleansing' for example.

No we have no imposed censorship now on our forum. We have things called...

Thread consolidation - routinely re- titling - limited editing - cross-indexing etc. The list of polite names goes on and on.

All that is being requested is that the posters are consulted before any change is imposed upon their contribution. Not too much to expect - is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 12:53 PM

Creating an index and lists of common threads sounds like work to me.
As long as a 'trace' does not dissappear it seems to me that all the good work we get for free on this forum is like delicious free frosting on a cake.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 01:18 PM

Roger: "All that is being requested is that the posters are consulted before any change is imposed upon their contribution. Not too much to expect - is it?

George: Yes, actually, it is too much to expect from the moderators of a web forum to which you offer no volunteer effort or financial support. You are a guest here, whether nameless or with a handle, just as I am, and also hundreds of others; no more. No rights to "expect" anything. Take it as you find it. Enjoy its positives (which you do, I know you often post in non-BS threads), and ignore the "negatives", perceived or real. If you cannot ignore them, walk away. It's a shop. It offers you things. You don't like it, move on, just as you do in the High Street. And let the grizzling and imputations against the moderators die out - and this thread with them.

But you won't. You can't let it go. It fills the day, it gives it purpose. You will resurrect threads from 2002 in the non-BS section (as you did today), to make the same points one more time.

Many have tired of this game. Many got frustrated and lashed out, rightly or wrongly. But you have stamina - you will keep at it.

Here's the news: so will I. Post by post, day by day, I will be responding and batting away anything you lob. I will not get angry; I will not get frustrated and lash out. I will just keep correcting. And why not? It's fun, and it's easy. Let this thread break the length records - you and me together we can do it, Roger.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:18 PM

As long as a 'trace' does not dissappear it seems to me that all the good work we get for free on this forum is like delicious free frosting on a cake.

There is no such thing as a free lunch - seemingly even when you make it yourself.

Max kindly provided the kitchen - all the rest of us freely provided the many and varied ingredients - so the way I have been encouraged -by Max to see it - the resulting cake is ours.

There would appear now to be a great number of cooks who think that the whole of the cake is theirs and that we should be grateful and pay them for the left-over crumbs.... And a number of kitchen porters who feel it best - that they are always seen to agree with the cook's judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,jeffp
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:25 PM

You make it seem as if the Joeclones have taken it upon themselves to perform this task without anyone's blessing. You know very well that that is not the case. Joe and the clones (good name for a band) operate with Max's permission and, presumably, at his behest. Your continued mischaracterization of Joe and the clones is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:25 PM

There would appear now to be a great number of cooks who think that the whole of the cake is theirs and that we should be grateful and pay them for the left-over crumbs.... And a number of kitchen porters who feel it best - that they are always seen to agree with the cook's judgement

Max has asked that the kitchen porters clean up after the cooks - who tend to be an exteremly messy lot. Until he objects - those who come in and eat a free lunch have no cause to complain.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:38 PM

Organizing Threads   Or just 'tinkering for the sake of it?

You judge if this imposition of one poster's taste upon others - is really needed and if so - what is wrong with with the fine search facilites and the music - non-music split that has been provided for us all?

Have all these software changes now made the imposition of this needless and problematic personal judgement, opinion and taste upon fellow posters - without their knowledge or agreement - completely redundent?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:39 PM

I wonder if I could start a series of complaints about vague metaphors and prolong it until I get censored? *grin* Then I could have Shambles on MY side.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:45 PM

I wonder if I could start a series of complaints about vague metaphors and prolong it until I get censored?

I have not noticed any reluctance on your part Bill - to post to complain. *Smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:52 PM

Does complaining about excess complaining constitute excess complaining?

boy, am I guilty!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 02:58 PM

Only if you do it excessively, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 03:22 PM

Does complaining about excess complaining constitute excess complaining? boy, am I guilty!

Don't worry Bill - there is no chance of you being censored......


As for Joe's "dislike" of birthday threads, he has made his personal feelings known for at least as long as I have been posting here. I notice that the thread you quoted from remains open with no evidence of censorship.

Surley this example proves exactly what you are trying to disprove. Joe has not acted on personal feelings...

Jon - I do not think that anyone (even Joe) has claimed that Joe Offer was not a human being with personal feelings to act upon – just like the rest of us.

I think the evident fact that Joe has successfully managed to inhibit other posters from posting what is to their taste but not to his widely expressed personal taste but without deleting or closing entire birthday threads or other imposed 'tinkering' - rather proves my main point.

It demonstrates that none of this heavy-handed imposition, division and secrecy has ever been necessary and there are many other less counter-productive methods of shaping our forum - that are preferable – certainly to the following…….

Subject: RE: BS: I blame the Romans...
From: brucie - PM
Date: 17 Apr 05 - 03:27 PM

The NYPD, The FBI, and the CIA are all trying to prove that
they are the best at apprehending criminals. The President
decides to give them a test. He releases a rabbit into a
forest and each of them has to catch it.

The CIA goes in. They place animal informants throughout the
forest. They question all plant and mineral witnesses. After
three months of extensive investigations they conclude that
rabbits do not exist.

The FBI goes in. After two weeks with no leads they burn the
forest, killing everything in it, including the rabbit, and
they make no apologies. The rabbit had it coming.

The NYPD goes in. They come out two hours later with a badly
beaten bear. The bear is yelling, "Okay! Okay! I'm a
rabbit! I'm a rabbit!"

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 03:50 PM

"I think the evident fact that Joe has successfully managed to inhibit other posters from posting what is to their taste but not to his widely expressed personal taste but without deleting or closing entire birthday threads or other imposed 'tinkering' - rather proves my main point."

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 03:53 PM

there are quite a few b'day threads still being posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,georgiansilver
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 04:24 PM

I guess when I started this thread...I didn't realise the implications of it....agh well such is life eh?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,georgiansilver
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 05:03 PM

My sentiments are the same as when the thread started......

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 07:32 PM

So, Roger - Joe is "divisive" and "heavy-handed" (your words). This clearly constitutes a slight on his person, and one which you have been unable to prove so far, as all your efforts in that direction have been proven fruitless. So much for your dislike of personal attacks, then; it was all poppycock and whingeing on your part when you felt yourself slighted. So be it, let your true colours shine through.

You also implicitly accuse BillD of being in cahoots with the Powers That Be ("there is no chance of you being censored"); but then you've done that before.

I am not sure if you are consciously trying to be unpleasant, or it sort of just happens.

Read Kavafi's "The Barbarians" - I think you'll find many similarities, not least in the obvious need to have some "enemy" to rail at.

All the rest, all the false arguments and misquotes, all the unpleasantness and personal attacks, are just an outcome of such a need, I argue. And your presistence in the absence of proof to support your claims, stops people even feeling sorry for you.

It's nothing more than shadowboxing. It's sad, but it does no harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,jOhn
Date: 25 Apr 05 - 07:58 PM

did yoy try my chewse and tuna and popato recipy yet?
its good you should try it,
you could put scliced tomoataes on it as well, on top.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 01:33 AM

Where the hell are your legions of followers Roger? Oh yeah......sorry......I forgot. They are all quivering in their socks in fear of posting and only Harpy has the courage to stand by you (moreso because of your value as a psychological research project). You've asked hundreds of the same questions over and over and never has any answer no matter how well explained been able to satisfy you........NOT because they are not true but simply because they don't fit in "Mr. Roger's Neighborhood."

You respond to everything with additional questions which are actually the same ones couched in yet another tangle of Shambles' Gibberese which makes little or no sense to anyone. We try to accomodate you but it really matters little since more questions and even more "documentation" results. Your proof sources are as mysterious as your gibberish making no sense either.

You're like a man in a pissing contest what got no dick! All you can do is piss down your leg but somehow you get great joy from doing so. You have my sympathies as you are without a doubt the original broke-dick mamalucca of all time. So once again I asked the obvious questions to which you have yet to respond:

Have you discussed your concerns with Max?
If so, what was his response?
If not, why not?

That is as simply put as I can make it. I await your answer.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 02:24 AM

You already have my answer to the very same question.


The following were my words. I will leave other (possibly more honest and less biased) posters to judge who is making and encouraging the personal attacks.

I think the evident fact that Joe has successfully managed to inhibit other posters from posting what is to their taste but not to his widely expressed personal taste but without deleting or closing entire birthday threads or other imposed 'tinkering' - rather proves my main point.

It demonstrates that none of this heavy-handed imposition, division and secrecy has ever been necessary and there are many other less counter-productive methods of shaping our forum - that are preferable – certainly to the following…….


The following were Catspaw's earlier words of advice to others (delivered in his usual offensive and abusive way) – that others ignore - so he decides to ignore them too.

QUIT FUCKIN' WITH THE AARDVARK!


It should be possible to offer a different, ask questions and make suggestions for improvements to the censorship system on our forum. Without this being seen (and encouraged to be seen) as a personal attack on one individual and to have a posters then subject to many personal attacks and campaigns.

The fact that this NOW seems to be impossible and the actions, persoanal taste and opinions of one poster seems to be identified so closely with the system they defend - suggest that a review is needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: chris nightbird childs
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 02:57 AM

"We need to get back to talking about music"

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 03:11 AM

Roger, for someone who never tires of repeating the same questions and making the same points dozens of times, is strangely reticent about repeating his answers to Spaw's three simple questions.

Chris, we do talk about music in other threads, daily. Roger does too. This is just a discussion on a specific non-music topic; it gets tiresome at times, and fun at other times, but it doesn't stop us from participating in the main business of the forum. It's like popping into the zoo on the way home from work, to watch the monkeys - just a bit of fun. Idle time, sure, but as long as the monkeys are there we might as well throw them a banana.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 03:18 AM

Is it a fact that the posting of Birthday Threads has been inhibited?

What then is the reason?

You may think that my concern over this inhibition and all the other aspects of the imposed censorship and how all of this is now shaping our forum - is not very important and OTT. If so - perhaps it would appear to follow that all the original imposed censorship and tinkering (set up to deal with a small problem) is also of equally small importance?

For what is the very worst thing that could happen without our volunteers to protect us - that we may read on a public disscussion forum - something that may not be to our taste? Is that really worth all the division that all this current imposed cemsorship causes? Is it really reasonable for anyone here to expect to find and read only things here that ARE to their taste.

Max can decide if he wishes to keep the (very rare) more extreme posts on his website - that is surely enough? But all I am really asking for is some proportion in all this and that any proposed changes are always subject to the poster's wishes. That any system be seen to be open, fair and have a clear objective.

I have not been barred from 22 other websites - I like this one fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 03:27 AM

Funny how we sometimes say so much to say so little.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 05:38 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 03:18 AM

Is it a fact that the posting of Birthday Threads has been inhibited?

What then is the reason?

You may think that my concern over this inhibition and all the other aspects of the imposed censorship and how all of this is now shaping our forum - is not very important and OTT. If so - perhaps it would appear to follow that all the original imposed censorship and tinkering (set up to deal with a small problem) is also of equally small importance?

For what is the very worst thing that could happen without our volunteers to protect us - that we may read on a public disscussion forum - something that may not be to our taste? Is that really worth all the division that all this current imposed cemsorship causes? Is it really reasonable for anyone here to expect to find and read only things here that ARE to their taste.

Max can decide if he wishes to keep the (very rare) more extreme posts on his website - that is surely enough? But all I am really asking for is some proportion in all this and that any proposed changes are always subject to the poster's wishes. That any system be seen to be open, fair and have a clear objective.

^ALL ANSWERED AND DISCUSSED BEFORE^

Have you discussed your concerns with Max?
If so, what was his response?
If not, why not?

Spaw---still waiting

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 05:54 AM

Funny how we sometimes say so much to say so little.

Yes but I am not really too sure how funny it is. For some of even invent an entire bogus membership to start an entire thread to say very little that they honestly feel………

Mudcat Censorship – a proposal


But have you not heard? It's official – I am NOT the problem any more (if I ever was).

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:31 PM

The alteration it needs must occur in the minds of the folks that respond to this stuff. Roger is entitled to his opinion, and in virtually every posters response they have indicated they are tired of his restating the same thing over and over; they are tired of him twisting quotes to serve himself; they go on and on about how he goes on and on. Do you folks learn anything? Who is worse, Roger or you? The question to Roger about who is "we" has been asked over and over.

Roger isn't the problem anymore. Those that feed him are.

Mick

And remember Catspaw's always profound advice (to others) - QUIT FUCKIN' WITH THE AARDVARK!

Mick and Jeri (as far as we know) are setting a better example or at least if they are posting - they are not posting under their real names.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 06:25 AM

I have to agree with Joe – when he agrees with me – in the following http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1448049

Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos.

Sadly not all (of those who's views would appear to matter most) are in agreement with the idea that it is "our" forum…

From: Big Mick - PM
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:02 AM

Those of you who continue to debate are very silly. This person continues to try and set the predicate that this is "our" forum. It is not now, never has been and never will be. Max owns it, maintains it and decides what it will or will not be. This person continues to draw you into the discourse based on incorrect assertions, has made it clear that he will not accept any answer other than what he wants to hear. It seems to me that those that encourage him are no less guilty than he is.

Perhaps we can now be encouraged move back to reading - responding or ignoring what poster's say - rather than judging each other's worth or their right to post? Max encouraged the showing of this mutual respect and it is what has made The Mudcat Forum special.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 06:44 AM

Yeah, let's put the onus of all this back on me or Mick or Jeri or El G or anyone else.............same old bullshit appears everytime you're ask.....but once again:

Have you discussed your concerns with Max?
If so, what was his response?
If not, why not?

Spaw---still waiting

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:06 AM

And remember Catspaw's always profound advice (to others) - QUIT FUCKIN' WITH THE AARDVARK!

*Smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:57 AM

Have you discussed your concerns with Max?
If so, what was his response?
If not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:00 AM

I wish I knew how to do big black writing like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:16 AM

It's simple. Use the H3 tag. Just like a B (bold) or I (italic) tag. Place it between the less than and greater than brackets before your text and then put a /H3 between the less than and greater than brackets after your text.

Clear as mud?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:20 AM

DID IT WORK?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:21 AM

Brilliant! Thanks for that, I can SHOUT at people now!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:26 AM

itallics, in red!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:26 AM

<b>Like this ft.</b> Anyway shambles seems to be ignoring it. Maybe bigger and red will get his attention...


Shambles

Have you discussed your concerns with Max?
If so, what was his response?
If not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:28 AM

Shambles,
                              Talk to Max. Send him a letter via The Royal Mail, can't fail then!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:31 AM

Repeating yourself again, Roger - you mentioned the "bogus membership and thread" yersterday again, and you got a response pronto. I don't know about you, but I was taught to be polite and apologise when repeating...*grin*

Yet, while you are repeating yourself tirelessly, the three simple questions of Catspaw still evade you; you claim you have answered them (which you have not, at least not to anyone's satisfaction), but you studiedly refuse to answer them again, even if only to humour catspaw.

Did I say the questions evade you? I meant the reverse of course.

"Slip-sliding away..."

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:40 AM

At this rate - you are looking well set for the 800th Ted.

Perhaps a look back again at the evidence at this point would be a good thing - for the benifit of the more recent arrivals to judge.

Without too much effort - there have been two imposed editing actions - that after being brought to light here - have been judged to have been wrong.

1. Flamenco Ted's claim for the 100th post which was deleted (from this thread) by a still anonymous volunteer - when the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team was not even aware that any editing had taken place. This had to be changed back again.

2. And the change imposed by a still anonymous volunteer to the title of a B/s non-music related thread. This had to be re-re-named.

Now you might still think all this does not amount to a bag of beans - (you may not feel like this - if the imposition had been made upon your contributions). Which were in no way abusive (unlike many other posts here - which have been safe from any editing action).

But if bringing these mistakes to public attention is thought to be a fuss about nothing - then in my view - so must the initial imposition and all the factors that lead to this now routine 'tinkering' upon the invited contributions of fellow posters - without their knowledge or agreement?

Is it really 'too complicated' to review and finally sort this out - to show equal respect to all contributions? Is not rather that the whole current system too complicated, secretive and divisive? There is clear evidence that it is not under any effective control and also that those who feel qualified to impose judgement upon their fellow posters do not wish to change anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:43 AM

You are still avoiding the questions Roger

Have you discussed your concerns with Max?
If so, what was his response?
If not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:51 AM

Roger,
      Thing is, I really don't care too much if I am deleted or not. After all, it's only mudcat, not life and death. If I OWNED MUDCAT, then I would get pissed off. I would also delete all non flamenco players!
             Fox hunting, the true path!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Same Veteran Member Again
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 10:08 AM

Shambles, I'm not going to read your posts anymore unless they start with "Yes. Max said...."

Have you discussed your concerns with Max?

If so, what was his response?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 10:14 AM

Roger: "Is it really 'too complicated' to review and finally sort this out - to show equal respect to all contributions? (No, it is not complicated, and Joe has already taken the corrective action, yonks ago)Is not rather that the whole current system too complicated, secretive and divisive?(No, it isn't - by agreement of the majority, you have proved nothing) There is clear evidence that it is not under any effective control and also that those who feel qualified to impose judgement upon their fellow posters do not wish to change anything.(No, there is no satisfactory evidence for your "theory", and it remains an unjustified slander)"

Meanwhile, you bring up the two laughable cases yet once more, instead of answering catspaw's (and ted's and mine) three simple questions.

Perhaps they are not quite so simple for you, then...

"The trick is not to stop the sliding
but to find a graceful way of staying slid".

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 10:18 AM

perhaps it needs to be in small brown writing.

Have you discussed your concerns with Max?
If so, what was his response?
If not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 10:29 AM

Pink writing is very hard to read too.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 10:48 AM

786!
Fuck me, is this onanistic whingefest still going on?
Hey, Rog, what did Max say?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 12:21 PM

Gone quiet, hasn't it? 787

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 02:45 PM

I could be wrong – and it may yet happen - but I don't think that any of our volunteers are actually preventing Max from reading and responding to any comments, questions and suggestions posted by the public on the part of his website that he has provided for this……No matter how big or small the lettering or what colour is used – I am quite sure that he will be perfectly able to read anything that anyone has said in this thread – and reply to it – if he wishes to.

However, this is what Max has said.

Subject: RE: Gallery of Mudcat Quotations
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 17 Sep 04 - 08:18 AM

Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules
From: Max - PM
Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=14726&messages=56&page=1&desc=yes


Wesley S came up with the following [posted in the latest 'hug and prayer complaint thread]- it says more in a few lines than I can ever manage, in my long-winded way.

Grant our members and guests the serenity to accept the things they cannot change - the courage to change the things they can - and the wisdom to realise that this is a forum open to the public and that they have no control over the posts and ideas of others

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 03:03 PM

Do you actually think that nothing has happened in the last 5 1/2 years? Where does it say that Roger sets the rules? Again I ask you:

Have you discussed your concerns with Max?
If so, what was his response?
If not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 03:41 PM

Naah, he can't jeffp - he might choke on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 05:03 PM

This was the answer that I gave earlier in the thread.

I doubt that you address and judge Max in the manner you do to me. Or discuss private exchanges publicly like you do with me. Call him names and question his sanity and invite others to follow your example - so if you make your demand to him - he may answer you.

As you make no public apology for any of your insulting comments in posts here - I see no reason why I should answer any public demand coming from you. So I won't - as it is none of your business.

Max is not the problem and does not need to be bothered for the solution - we all are the problem and we all have always had the solution.

It is a convention here which I still respect - (even if some other posters here who should know better - do not now appear to respect anything or anyone) - that anything that is said in personal messages - remains private.

So whatever new names can be found to call me and however many HTML variations are used to say it - whatever passes between me and any other party - will remain private. Perhaps this and many other things - can be respected and those that wish to can return to sensible discussion and those that do not - can find another thread to refresh - that interests them more than this one obviously does?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 05:08 PM

OK, we have an answer! A resounding "NO"

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 05:09 PM

Though three paragraphs just to say "NO" seems a tad wordy.
793 - get ready Leadfingers.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 05:17 PM

I doubt that you address and judge Max in the manner you do to me. Or discuss private exchanges publicly like you do with me. Call him names
and question his sanity and invite others to follow your example - so if you make your demand to him - he may answer you. As I have never done any of these things to you, you are way out of line in accusing me.

As you make no public apology for any of your insulting comments in posts here - I see no reason why I should answer any public demand coming
from you. So I won't - as it is none of your business.See above

Max is not the problem and does not need to be bothered for the solution - we all are the problem and we all have always had the solution. So we can take that to mean that you have not taken your concerns to Max?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 06:10 PM

Wouldn't dare, jeffp

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 07:02 PM

El Greko - or shall we call you Xander? - How about starting another thread where you can create another bogus membership to post and argue with yourself again? That was real fun.

From the following site http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/troyilium/a/taleoftroy_3.htm

Crafty Odysseus devised a plan that ultimately doomed the Trojans. Sending all the Greek ships away or into hiding, it appeared to the Trojans that the Greeks had given up. The great wooden gift the Greeks left before the walls of the city of Troy appeared to be an offering to Athena -- a peace offering. The jubilant Trojans dragged the monstrous, wheeled, wooden horse into their city to celebrate the end of the ten years of fighting.
But beware of Greeks bearing gifts!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 07:10 PM

Max is not the problem and does not need to be bothered for the solution - we all are the problem

Oh well, back to basics...

Shambles, let's start with this one.

As Max appoints the anonymous volunteers and we have no input into any such decision, how is it that we are your problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 07:19 PM

Such a pleasant number.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 07:19 PM

'800' kinda reminds one of toll-free phone calls!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 07:21 PM

Boom!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 07:23 PM

As Max appoints the anonymous volunteers and we have no input into any such decision, how is it that we are your problem?

Can you try that one again Jon? I think I may know what you are trying to say here but I would like to be sure - before I try and answer it.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 07:36 PM

As Max appoints the anonymous volunteers and we have no input into any such decision, how is it that we are your problem?

Can you try that one again Jon? I think I may know what you are trying to say here but I would like to be sure - before I try and answer it.

Shambles I am saying that one of your objections is that we have amonymous volunteers performing tasks at Mudcat. We neither appointed those people or set the rule that they should be allowed to perform thier tasks anonymously.

What I want to know from you is how we who had no part in these decisions that have created a system you (not I) object to are the problem. I also want to know why the creator of this part of the system (one I think works well) should not be part of your problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 07:44 PM

haven't read this for several days, but I do want to assure anyone interested that I am not in cahoots with anyone..*grin*

and Shambles, I don't think I am likely to be censored either, but I'd like to believe that it's my genteel nature and mild manners that keep me safe. I certainly don't think my deep respect and reverential relationship with Joe and Max have anything to do with it.





(is $5 and a six-pack enough, Joe?)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Chris Green
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 07:57 PM

The coloured messages look very pretty! Well done!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:03 PM

Hmmmm. Shouldn't the phrase be, "Beware of gifts beairng Greeks"?

And Bill, I can't recall if I censored you ar not. I certainly didn't ever censor Shambles - but from the way he screams about censorship, you'd never know it.

Well, I DID delete a few duplicate messages of his, back when he felt honor-bound to post the same thing in three different threads. I guess he still does that, but mostly now he posts and reposts MY words...

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:12 PM

Jon WE are all posters to the forum - WE are the public that Max invited to contribute. From that point on - it is all of US that create all the problems - like abusive personal attacks and responding in kind.

Is it Max's fault that we can't get along and up to him to sort out and rule on every squabble and try to ensure that folk don't see anything here that might offend them?

It is my view that the current 'system' of having some trusted volunteers who can now as a matter of routine impose their tastes upon others and who feel they have to edit in response to every minor concern - is only in the long-run - going to add to the problems this system is set up to address. The strength of the forum was always that everyone was encouraged to post on an equal basis. Is this not now thought to be important?

I am not really interested in apportioning blame for the harm the (largely well-intentioned) current 'system' is doing to our forum - just in trying - before it is too late - to ensure that The Mudcat Forum remains a special place - and does not become just another website - with threats and ever more petty restrictions and needless judgements being imposed.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:18 PM

Is it Max's fault that we can't get along and up to him to sort out and rule on every squabble and try to ensure that folk don't see anything here that might offend them?

Hang on a minute Shambles, wasn't it you who wanted all editorial judgments to go to Max?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:30 PM

Ah...

Perhaps a similar process here - where every imposed editing action required a written report to be submitted to Max for his approval - may have the same effect and result in less imposed judgement and a more proportiate approach?

So it's OK for Max to be burdened with processing written reports (rather than put some trust in the people he appoints) and at the same time not to be expeceted to sort out squabbles.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:56 PM

So it's OK for Max to be burdened with processing written reports (rather than put some trust in the people he appoints) and at the same time not to be expeceted to sort out squabbles.

There are two cases detailed in this thread alone (and many others that I have evidenced) - where it is shown that this trust was misplaced. All of this does a lot of harm to our forum especially when it is simply defended and remains unchanged - until the next time.

I suggested that if they should remain - that volunteers having to fill out written reports was one way of limiting these types of incorrect imposed editing - for really minor things and general 'tinkering' with other people's posts that could easily be left alone. Max does not have to ever read them.......*Smiles*

The best solution would be to have no routine imposed editing at all. In truth - the only editing action that Max really needs to decide on is if he wishes the libellious or rare extreme posting to remain on his website. These are rare and can easily be brought to his attention.

The rest is up to us.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:03 PM

There are two cases detailed in this thread alone (and many others that I have evidenced) - where it is shown that this trust was misplaced.

So surely if Max's trust has been misplaced, that should be of concern to him? Why don't you tell him?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:14 PM

and Shambles, I don't think I am likely to be censored either, but I'd like to believe that it's my genteel nature and mild manners that keep me safe. I certainly don't think my deep respect and reverential relationship with Joe and Max have anything to do with it.

The first bit may save you Bill - but it can only be working very hard at cultivating the second bit - that saves Catspaw *Smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 04:06 AM

Morning, Roger - you were up late, I see.
Or should I call you Laocoon?
You can call me what you like, if you get confused between reality and April Fools - I wooden shout myself horse in protest. Take it as a gift from me.

Sad person that I am, I went back and counted the instances of your repetition of the El Greko-or-Xander gripe: 6 in 4 weeks, twice in the last 3 days. I won't even attempt to count the number of times you brought Joe, the clones and censorship up, I bet dollars to peanuts the number is in the hundreds.

Bless you, Roger, but you're getting samey. A bit of originality would help this conversation. It may be pointless, but it doesn't have to be boring. Have you really exhausted all the possible logical cul-de-sacs you can lead us down? We follow you faithfully, but do try to make it more interesting!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 04:50 AM

A bit of originality would help this conversation

Funny, I tried to write an "autoshambles" last night. I changed my mind on what it should do but maybe I will give this version a whirl and see if it works.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,autoshambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 04:51 AM

Grant our members and guests the serenity to accept the things they cannot change - the courage to change the things they can - and the wisdom to realise that this is a forum open to the public and that they have no control over the posts and ideas of others
This is clear evidence that Joe and his evil empire are destroying our forum which Max invites us to post to

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,autoshambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 04:51 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.
This is clear evidence that Joe and his evil empire are destroying our forum which Max invites us to post to

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,autoshambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 04:51 AM

Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think. I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones. -Joe Offer-[Not in brown]
This is clear evidence that Joe and his evil empire are destroying our forum which Max invites us to post to

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 04:58 AM

I have a peaceful easy feeling that there is a 1000th post to be had here. Terence, are you up for the challenge? Oh, sorry, I forgot, you don't get up till 2pm do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 05:02 AM

Aaarrgghhhh!!

LOL, Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 05:11 AM

As you make no public apology for any of your insulting comments in posts here - I see no reason why I should answer any public demand coming from you. (Shambles)

Shambles, you have been asked the same questions by different members and instead of giving a clear response have repeated the above post by you. Since this post does obviously not apply to all the members that have asked you the same set of questions you could perhaps answer to those for which the above evasive answer doesn't apply.

Or are you playing a child? "I won't respond to you before Catspaw (or whoever) doesn't apologise to me."

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 05:22 AM

For Wolfgang and anyone else.

So whatever new names can be found to call me and however many HTML variations are used to say it - whatever passes between me and any other party - will remain private. Perhaps this and many other things - can be respected and those that wish to can return to sensible discussion and those that do not - can find another thread to refresh - that interests them more than this one obviously does?

OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 05:35 AM

Respect, Roger - your private conversations are your own and I for one have no interest in them. The three questions referred to your inviting an opinion from Max, and not to the precise details of any response.

I realise however that the three questions are in fact redundant by now. Max is bound to have seen the thread, and very likely Joe might have also mentioned it to him. The absence of any response from Max is very eloquent in itself - after all, why should he get involved in silliness such as this?

Accordingly, you should therefore now cease invoking "Max's wishes" or your interpretation of them, in support of your theories on censorship.

As for refreshing this thread - you yourself said that chasing the n00th post is not offensive or to be censored.

So don't you try to censor us

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 05:52 AM

The thread that El Greko started (in March – which claimed to be a April fool) - whilst pretending to be Xander (in order it would appear - to argue with himself) Mudcat Censorship – a proposal does make for interesting reading.

It starts off with the following I have watched the "Censorship on Mudcat" thread with dismay, as more and more attacks were made at Roger (Shambles) and the main issue became clouded.

It is interesting to see how the (completely bogus) impression given that Xander could even slightly seen to be posting in any form of support for the views that I honestly hold, express and evidence – is received. Also interesting how this is commented on - by posters who quite understandably assume Xander to be who he claims to be and have no reason to think he is not.

I am content to let folk make their own judgements and I make no claim to have legions of supporters –– but should posters reading these threads be too surprised at the apparent lack of anyone - openly willing to place themselves in the firing line?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 06:08 AM

Three in a day, 7 in 4 weeks... If this keeps up, I won't need a new April Fool's next year, we'll just use the same.

What firing line, Roger? No guns pointed at you, as far as I can see. You posted your views, and we disagreed. You posted them again, and we disagreed again. You posted them again, and we disagreed again. You posted them again, and we disagreed again. You posted them again, and we disagreed again. You posted them again, and we disagreed again. You posted them again, and we disagreed again. And so on.

On the way, some got frustrated by your repetition and seeming inability to comprehend the responses you were getting or to answer any questions asked of you. That turned the conversation into a shambles (pun fully intentional) and a rigmarole. And some got offended by it - very understandably. Even worse, the impression you gave by all this repetition and childish attempts to sidetrack questions (just like you did just now) has been - how shall I put it? Listen to the first verse of the Beatle's "Fool on the hill" and you'll get an inkling.

Ah - but will you?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 06:22 AM

You did not wait until April 1st this year - so please go ahead but I am not too sure that anyone will notice.

I am beginning to think that perhaps Xander is the serious one and invented El Greko - as the joke. Xander in fact - spoke a lot more sense.

This is the end of the Trojan wars - if you wish to continue this persoal spat - please do so via PMs. There is no need to inflict this upon others and I shall ignore any further public provocation from you (or Xander).

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 06:33 AM

8
Good - I agree about not inflicting this gripe on others.
I hope this can also apply to the rest of the arguments.
I PMed you.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 07:25 AM

Aw, c'mon Rog - only another 179 to go. At current rates, you'll have that done by this evening!
And, boy, won't there be an almighty and undignified scramble to claim the 1000th post?
though it really should be Joe who does it - in brown text, of course!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 11:58 AM

OK, this time just for a change you seem to have given an honest response, Shambles, to my last post. For responding to others that you do not respond to them because Catspaw has not apologised to you does not seem to have been your honest response. Or was it?

Which Shambles shall we take by his word, the one who tells others he will not respond to their question because Catspaw has not yet apologised to him or the one who tells us whatever passes between me and any other party - will remain private?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 01:13 PM

Gee, we're at 827 posts, and I'll wager that nothing is going to stop this thread until it makes 1,000. I'm sure that Shambles would like to fill the rest of this thread with copy-pastes of the Wit and Wisdom of Joe Offer. I'll bet he could post the same quotes two or three times in the same thread, for that matter - since people can break threads into pages now, perhaps it's fair to make sure that the copy-pastes occur on each page?

I'd like to propose that we get away from all this negativity. Hey, we could continue talking about the Trojan Wars (is that about condoms?) and talk about something more uplifting (Helen's brassiere?) So, do you think Helen would like it if we gave her that big horse to ride?

Anyhow, I have to say that I liked the movie, and I don't care what the critics say about it.
Troy, that is.
I like Mudcat, and don't care what the critics say about it.
Shambles, that is.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 02:42 PM

Gervase

We could always start up on hunting with dogs again - if you like. But all I am saying is that I am not prepared to inflict a personal spat with El Greco on the forum. I still await convincing that my concerns about censorship here are unfounded and my suggestions for improvements are too complicated. Logic, reason and evidence may do this - but personal judgements will not.

Wolfgang

I have found over the years that you have spoken a lot of sense. I have not found that to be true much lately - and your last post post has completely baffled me. Perhaps this will baffle you in return?

The questions asked were simple repetitions of the original poster's repetition after I had provided this poster with their answer. Are you suggesting that I won't be considered as honest until I provide a different answer to exactly the same repeated questions?

Whoever is asking - I am being asked to post publicly - a response to a private exchange. I have given my reasons for not being prepared to do this - can this finally be respected?

Is is now clear that the fact that Catspaw owes our forum many apolgies is not a justification or a condition from me - for the lack of a reply to anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 03:26 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp - PM
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 03:03 PM

Do you actually think that nothing has happened in the last 5 1/2 years? Where does it say that Roger sets the rules? Again I ask you:

Have you discussed your concerns with Max?
If so, what was his response?
If not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 05:03 PM

This was the answer that I gave earlier in the thread....

As you [Catspaw] make no public apology for any of your insulting comments in posts here - I see no reason why I should answer any public demand coming from you. So I won't - as it is none of your business.

This was what you gave as response to (among others) Jeff's question.
Can this be considered - as we all know that Max gave this site to us - and we all can only set a better example by the content of our posts instead of passing judgments on others - as the unknown clones do in brown colour in order not to refresh the thread so that others cannot read their contributions and Flamenco Ted cannot claim an innocent 1000th post - that is censored by a clone imposing his personal taste while Joe claims he cannot see the censorship - an honest response to Jeff - when you yourself shortly after that gave him a completely different reason as response - just as Xander the Troyan gave completely different opinions under his second handle as Alex the Greek in the same thread ?

Wolfgang (hoping that his intention on the 27 Apr 05 - 05:11 AM post is now clear enough)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 03:26 PM

I never spat! *smile*

Seriously though:

Roger clearly remains unconvinced by the arguments/logic of myself, WYSIWYG, Wolfgang, Catspaw, jeffp, Gervase and others. We (same names) remain unconvinced by his evidence. Stalemate - might as well settle for the long haul.

There is something that Roger alluded to a few days ago on this thread, that would concern me: In response to somebody's pointing out that he (Roger) appears to be alone in holding the views he does, Roger suggested that there are many more dissatisfied members, some of whom have PMed Roger to express their support, but they are afraid to post their views on this thread for fear of being "attacked" as Roger is.

If that is so, it would be a shame. I wish such fellow 'catters could find it in themselves to brave an opinion in this thread, posting as GUESTs if necessary; it would be a comfort to Roger, and would provide a better view of the difference of opinions - which right now seems one-sided.

Not that our (anyone's) opinions matter terribly, in my view, as this is a privately owned and maintained forum open to the public. But I would still like to know what the views are.

George

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 04:15 PM

oh for god's sake Roger!

I still await convincing that my concerns about censorship here are unfounded and my suggestions for improvements are too complicated

People have been telling you nothing BuT that for months!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 07:06 PM

Well, I have to say that there is value in Shambles/Roger's perspective. Most of the rest of us don't share that perspective, so it is difficult for us to understand his priorities. Shambles sees Mudcat primarily as a vehicle for self-expression, as a place for people to express their creativity and ideas and lyrics and whatnot. As such, he believes Mudcat should orient itself toward the priorities of the people who post messages. And it is true that Mudcat has been that, and has served many people very well as a means of self-expression.

I think the majority of us see Mudcat as primarily a place that is oriented toward the reader, rather than toward the person who furnishes information. As such, Mudcat should make the priorities of the readers its primary consideration. It is wonderful that so many people have furnished all this information and creativity, but the reader needs help in finding his way around this maze. That's why we index and title and organize and remove duplicates. We don't do it to offend the originator, and we have no reason to offend the originator. It's not a matter of "personal taste" - it's simply a matter of doing the best we can to help people find their way around, building a roadmap or a highway system so that people can find their way around the 1.47 million messages that have been posted here.

Roger's concerns are legitimate - but it's just a matter of choice. The general tip of the scale is that Mudcat is a reader-oriented forum that assists readers in finding information - but still does its best to respect and encourage the free expression of the people who post here.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 08:08 PM

No Wolfgang - I have tried but I still have no idea what you are trying to say in your last post. If it is any consolation to you (and perhaps it won't be) - I did PM jeffp.

Roger suggested that there are many more dissatisfied members, some of whom have PMed Roger to express their support, but they are afraid to post their views on this thread for fear of being "attacked" as Roger is.

El Greko - I do not think that I ever publicly stated that I had PMs expressing the support of others. I may well have informed you of that in a PM. Perhaps you will show a little more care with the information you post publicly? I certainly did not ever state publicly that the posters of any of these PMs had stated that they were afraid to post publicly for fear of being "attacked".

However, from my experience - posting a minority view on this subject is not one that I would currently encourage any other poster to do on our forum - in the current climate. Whether to post publicly - must be a matter for each poster to decide. However, a little public support - for balance - would be as welcome as it would be surprising - under the circumstances.

Perhaps someone can count them - but of the total of over 500 posts to this thread (so far) how many individual posters have made a contribution? For some posters have contributed many times. I am not sure but I would be surprised if the total was any more than 200 individuals. So however unlikely you may think it - it is still possible that the vast majority of Mucatters may in fact be in perfect agreement with all of my concerns and suggestions.....

But if that were to be the case - would it change your view - if your view were to prove to be a minority one? I suspect not - so why would anyone think that I should be persuaded to change mine - only by the suggestion that it was a minority one?

My view is that even one voice of disatisfaction on our forum should be accomodated - if possible. They should certainly not be subject to campaigns of the sort of personal judgement (that sadly has now become all too common on our forum) and told to go somewhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 09:12 PM

Roger's concerns are legitimate - but it's just a matter of choice. The general tip of the scale is that Mudcat is a reader-oriented forum that assists readers in finding information - but still does its best to respect and encourage the free expression of the people who post here.

If as you say - things are a matter of choice – when they are - will it always be a matter of your personal choice being imposed?

Joe whether you or anyone else judges that my concerns are legitimate or illegitimate - they will remain my concerns and be perfectly legitimate to me or any other poster to express. Will it remain the case that Mudcatters have the choice to read my concerns - or not?

For as long as they are moderately expressed - they will find a place somewhere on our Public Discussion Forum - whatever your judgement of their poster's worth may be. So perhaps you could set the example of NOT passing judgement on the worth or right of a poster to post - but confine yourself to either responding to or ignoring what the poster actually says? As I will now.



You could perhaps argue that public libraries are for the reader. But you would also have to equally accept that without the writer - there would be nothing for the reader to read or information for them to find.

However, any library that showed so little respect to its authors by considering that its employees could - as they wished - re-name the authors works - in the name of 'indexing' – and this took priority - would soon find its supply of books and information drying-up.

Perhaps anonymous volunteers imposing these changes to thread titles as a matter of routine - without the poster's knowledge or agreement - will now stop on our forum? For I am sure that if the required change is in the best interests of our forum – I am sure that permission to change it will be granted. I am sure you will agree that it would show the correct respect to the poster – to always be asked first (where this is possible)?

Max has stated that he sees his role as only to facilitate. Joe our forum serves many roles - do you now see your role on our forum as to rule on which role will take priority? For in this case are both considerations equally valid and is it not just a matter of personal taste and one for the community to decide?

It is at the heart of my (legitimate) concerns that our forum be shaped only by its contributions and the personal tastes of ALL its contributors.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:14 AM

Max has stated that he sees his role as only to facilitate. Joe our forum serves many roles - do you now see your role on our forum as to rule on which role will take priority? For in this case are both considerations equally valid and is it not just a matter of personal taste and one for the community to decide?

At which point shambles, your concerns cease to be legitimate.

Once again, you don't not know what Max's view is now but presume on a nearly 6 year old post.

When I asked you why you didn't ask Max, you told me it was "our" (all posters) fault and now you go back to blaming Joe inflicting his personal choice on the forum.

Joe has said he consults with Max and even if you don't believe him, it is ridiculous to think that Joe has been kept in a senior position by Max if he is not acting in accordance with Max's wishes.

Ask Max what his current policies are.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:35 AM

Jon

Max has shown that he can make his feelings very clear - as he has of you. If Max were to be stating the things that Joe has stated here publicly - I would be able to publicly ask the same questions of Max. Max has not- so we are left to discuss them with with Joe.

Joe

Well, I have to say that there is value in Shambles/Roger's perspective. Most of the rest of us don't share that perspective, so it is difficult for us to understand his priorities. Shambles sees Mudcat primarily as a vehicle for self-expression, as a place for people to express their creativity and ideas and lyrics and whatnot. As such, he believes Mudcat should orient itself toward the priorities of the people who post messages. And it is true that Mudcat has been that, and has served many people very well as a means of self-expression.

Why do I get the idea from this that we are being served with the notice from Joe – that the Mudcat serving many people well as a means of self-expression is about to come to an end? *Smiles*

'Most of us'- - I suspect don't share anyone's elses's perspective for has it not been made very clear that posters to the Mudcat Discussion Forum are individuals with many different perspectives? Enabling all of this to be pooled equally– has been the Mudcat's strength. My priority (if I indeed have one) is only that this can continue to be the case.

Let us be clear. Joe are you informing us that your wish to 'index' the contributions of others – should now take priority over what is freely contributed by them?
And to the extent that you will now change the titles that the originators have given and combine many threads together under a title of your choosing – as a matter of routine and without the originator's knowledge or consent?

That is what it looks like from the following.

I think the majority of us see Mudcat as primarily a place that is oriented toward the reader, rather than toward the person who furnishes information.

You may think that – but how do you know if this is true? And if it were true – should not your role only be to facilitate for ALL contributors – and not just for who you see as MOST of them?

As such, Mudcat should make the priorities of the readers its primary consideration. It is wonderful that so many people have furnished all this information and creativity, but the reader needs help in finding his way around this maze. That's why we index and title and organize and remove duplicates. We don't do it to offend the originator, and we have no reason to offend the originator. It's not a matter of "personal taste" - it's simply a matter of doing the best we can to help people find their way around, building a roadmap or a highway system so that people can find their way around the 1.47 million messages that have been posted here.

Are the fine search facilities not sufficient for finding our way around the 'maze'?

My concern is less over these proposed changes – which may well prove useful – but the fact that these changes MUST be imposed. Even if this 'indexing' is considered to be so important – is it really so very important that any changes like these MUST now be imposed by you – without the originator's knowledge or consent as a matter of routine?

Would it not be more in the spirit of The Mudcat to always ask the originator's permission first and if this is not possible – to leave their contribution as posted? I am quite sure that if the change was thought important enough – that consent would be as freely given as the original contribution was – but I feel that it would be showing the correct respect – to always ask first. What would be the problem with this approach?

Other than the fact that you personally don't want to adopt it?

The point you appear to miss – is that on our forum the readers ARE the writers. The same people are entitled to the same respect – whether they are writing to or reading from our forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:50 AM

Max has shown that he can make his feelings very clear - as he has of you. If Max were to be stating the things that Joe has stated here publicly - I would be able to publicly ask the same questions of Max. Max has not- so we are left to discuss them with with Joe.

But Joe has told you on many occasions that he works in consultation with Max. Why do refuse to believe him?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:03 AM

"Joe whether you or anyone else judges that my concerns are legitimate or illegitimate - they will remain my concerns and be perfectly legitimate to me or any other poster to express. " Quite - but is there really a need to post to the point where those concerns make you either a laughing stock or a major pain in the posterior.
Surely by now, if there was genuinely a silent majority which agreed with you, it would have spoken. As it is, of the many thousand registered users and the many hundred regular posters, I see no rush to stand by your side.
Which leads on to your claim that "on our forum the readers ARE the writers". I'm afraid that isn't the case.
There are many more passive readers than active writers, and that reflects the purpose of the Mudcat as I understand it. An enormous number of people simply browse this forum and the DT to find information. I would imagine the majority of them couldn't give a tuppenny fart about our witterings on politics, Hull or William Shatner, but we are able to do that because Max Spiegel (who owns the server on which all this wittering resides) allows us to. He has invited us - a bunch of disparate lunatics united by a love of blues and folk - to come and play in his sitting room, but it remains his sitting room to do with what he wishes.
That there are so few rules is astonishing (as Catspaw has pointed out), and I have absolutely no problem with Joe's housekeeping. In fact the only person who does seem to have a problem with it is you. If you genuinely feel that you are being censored and that you have something important to say which isn't getting through to us, why not go here and create a web page on which to make your point and then bung a link to it on this thread.
Then we can all see if your claims have any validity.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:01 AM

I like your idea, Gervase - that would indeed be a way to bypass any unwanted censorship, making this whole discussion moot.

I also lean towards the emphasis on readers for Mudcat. That has indeed been historically its purpose (see the discussion in "Mudcat Ecperiment Works"): as a resource, akin to a library, where indeed much of the content is contributed by (some) of the readers. Over the years it has become a place to meet socially, and as more and more Mudcatters have met each other physically, new levels of communication have been reached. These levels include the occasional sharp langage and judgement, just as you would in outside life. But the original purpose - to be a resource - is not invalidated by that. So, if there was ever a need to choose between what is good for reader and what is good for writers, I favour the former.

In this context, many of the editorial decisions that are being disputed here, make perfect sense.

By the way Roger, I betrayed no confidence - you did mention your knowledge of the feelings of others in the terms I stated, sometime in March; it was around the time of the discussion of the meaning of "we". I know this, because I discussed it off-line with someone (not the editorial team, by the way).

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Spaw
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 06:41 AM

So Joe throws out an olive branch and Shambles rips the leaves off, strips the bark, breaks it into small pieces, pisses all over it, and finally runs it through the shredder....LMAO.....Right, then!

Roger, there is no doubt in my mind and should be absolutely no doubt in yours that those who are posting here in this thread are crystal clear as to your concerns. You have often rambled as is your wont and added in additional concerns, but in essence I think this may be your position:

You believe that what is written here bu anyone posting here is sacrosanct and not to be changed for any reason without the approval of the author. You see an extremely limited number of reasons why this should ever occur. You think the way to keep things flowing and pleasant and smooth is to set the example through our own postings. You believe that any real concerns can and should behandled by Max himself who has said we are the ones making the rules and he only wishes to facillitate the process. Now I am not wholly sure of this, but I think that you also believe that Joe is and has been taking actions of which Max does not or would not approve and his Clones anonymity creates a bad message sent to the membership. The fact that at times differences have occured between Joe and the Clones which many view as a good check and balance (speaking as one who has both won and lost fights with Joe), you see as the fallacy of the system and/or/also that Joe is imposing his will upon the membership outside of what Max has stated in that post from '99.

I am sure you can elaborate on this and add in additional concersn, not to mention getting in all of the nuances of each thought and word. I think though that I have captured at least the basics of your position as simply stated as possible. My take on all of this is that you're wrong. Had I said "full of shit" I know that you would consider that a personal attack rather than aa attempt to lighten the mood as I would, so again I say, you're wrong.

It really doesn't matter whether either of us is right as long as our statements are on record unchanged as you wish them to be. Are there any of your thoughts that remain unexpressed? If so, please post them. Understand this.....Nothing that anyone here can say will change your mind in the least (it certainly hasn't so far) and the only final answer to any of your concerns must come from Max and not be based on your interpretation of a 6 year old post that I seriously doubt he ever believed would turn into your own personal vision and mantra.

I think that others posting on the thread might be in agreement with me, but I would invite them to add, subtract, or completely disagree on anything I have said. Even though I am Big Bad Spaw, controller and dominator of this place and the baddest ass in the joint, I assure one and all they will suffer no repercussions nor wake up with the head of Mister Ed in the bed beside them. You might Roger, but they won't.

Point is this.....If we all understand each other and we have each made our feelings known, then I think the only thing left to do is await a word or two from Max. Is there any point in repeating the same things over and over? Really, is there?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 07:46 AM

So, if there was ever a need to choose between what is good for reader and what is good for writers, I favour the former.

I note the use of the word 'if'.... But is there now such a need?

If Joe's 'indexing' is thought to be important - no one is suggestion that it should not take place . The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion?

To my mind - any changes here to a contribution that are imposed by a fellow poster without the original poster's knowledge or permission - is censorship.

There may be rare occasions where such imposition can be justified - but is this 'indexing' really one of them?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 07:56 AM

Well put, spaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 08:14 AM

Is there any point in repeating the same things over and over? Really, is there?
Not sure – perhaps you should repeat it – like you did the following?

Have you discussed your concerns with Max?
If so, what was his response?
If not, why not?

Spaw---still waiting

Whose advice to others in this thread – but which he can't appear to follow himself - includes QUIT FUCKIN' WITH THE AARDVARK!

Well put, spaw. Me too.

LOL *Smiles*

If Joe's 'indexing' is thought to be important - no one is suggestion that it should not take place . The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 08:21 AM

"The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought"
Unfortunately there seem to be some around here so prolix and prone to logorrhoea that seeking their consent would result in an exchange of PMs so prolific that it would bring the server to a standstill! Talk about being like a terrier with a sock...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 08:27 AM

If Joe's 'indexing' is thought to be important - no one is suggestion that it should not take place . The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion?

Anyone think that this is such a terrible suggestion - or too complicated - and would like to explain why?

Or is anyone brave enough to post publicly and accept that there is no reason why this suggestion should not be implemented and that it would in fact be a good idea?

Perhaps someone even thinks that it would be a good idea for election clerks to be able to change your vote?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 08:49 AM

"Perhaps someone even thinks that it would be a good idea for election clerks to be able to change your vote?" What? What absolute twaddle!
You can go off and post what you like somewhere else and then tell us where it is and we can go and read it in its uncensored entirety. If, that is, you're being censored.
Joe, however, states above that every word you have written is available somewhere on the Mudcat - all he has done is delete multiple posts and combine threads.
Perhaps someone even thinks that it would be a good idea for people to be able to vote several times in the same election?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 08:55 AM

Steady on Gervase - you might 'bring the server to a standstill'. *Smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 09:15 AM

Gervase is right - the comparison with election clerks altering votes is facetious, and can only be treated as a joke. And his suggestion about posting "censored" remarks somewhere else and then telling us opens the doors completely and invalidates the arguments about censorship, irrespective of which view we each hold. It kills the thread, and no 900 post need occur.

I hereby invite anyone who feels they have been unfairly censored in the past to act on Gervase's suggestion and "let us have it".

If no such actions take place in the next few days, this clearly and irrefutably is not, and has never been an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 09:25 AM

Come on George, only another 51 to go, and it would make Ted or Terry's day!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 09:45 AM

I wish I could think of something intelligent to say to spur you on to the 900th post, but I read this stuff and my brain glazes over! How you lot be bothered with all this is beyond me. This thread makes brother Amos's threads seem like a laugh and a titter!
            Swindon, the true path!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 10:17 AM

Wolfgang

I have found over the years that you have spoken a lot of sense. I have not found that to be true much lately

I still have no idea what you are trying to say in your last post. (Shambles)

Shambles, I have not tried to speak sense in these two posts. And I'm truly glad you see it this way.
I have picked one of your posts, disregarded the context and intention, have turned this post into an accusation that you do not act consistently over time, have used the words 'this time...honest' as a character defamation and have constructed a contradiction between the one Shambles and the other (which one can we trust?).

In other words, I have done to you what I perceive you doing to Joe and others here. The problem is that while you still can see when someone else stops making sense you fail to see that you have stopped making sense long ago. Outside of the context of these threads you seem a likable, sensible and good guy. In these threads, the way you argue makes so little sense. As Joe said what you seem to want is fair and debatable but the way you argue for that makes yorself the worst enemy of any reasonable discussion about the theme.

I have parodied your style in my 27 Apr 05 - 03:26 post. You must have seen that. Making fun of your type of argumentation is kind an act of despair in this discussion. But no parody can be as good as the original. You are the one playing the fool since long and the saddest aspect is you don't seem to realise that. No, it's even worse, you are not playing.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 12:48 PM

Wolfgang - perhaps we can leave the forum to judge all of our relative foolishness and our honesty?

No one is forcing anyone to read this and no one is being forced into to making judgements of the worth of fellow posters. It is a sad day on our forum when folk post and encourage others to shout these honestly held and moderately expressed views down or to gang-up and play elaborate and silly games to ridicule them. It is a sad day indeed on our forum - when this sort of treatment of the views of fellow posters is thought to be acceptable.

The evidence is all here and I have proved beyond doubt in this evidence what I set out to do. This was simply that what was defended in the 'spin' is NOT what was happening. I will leave you to judge from this evidence and the answers given to the qustions and suggestons made...........

Just in the time of this thread - two instances of editing action being imposed upon fellow posters without their knowledge - were judge to be wrong and had to be corrected. Without this thread - they would not have been corrected - so it has served this useful service at least.

If Joe's 'indexing' is thought to be important - no one is suggestion that it should not take place . The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 12:54 PM

Without this thread - they would not have been corrected - so it has served this useful service at least.

complete and total conjecture - unsupported by any facts.

Subject: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 01:54 PM

Dear Guest,Lynn:
On December 18, 1985, you started a thread at the Mudcat Cafe titled "Lyr req: Lyrics Request." There are 18 replies in the thread, all suggesting that you would get a better response if you started a thread titled "Lyr req: This Land Is Your Land." I see that there are 37 other threads titled "Lyr req: Lyrics Request" - all from Guest,Lynn, and all requesting the same song. Would you mind terribly if I retitled the thread "Lyr req: This Land Is Your Land" and closed the other threads and crosslinked them to the first one? We here at Mudcat (Max, Jeff, Joe, Mick, Spaw, Kat, and Shambles) realize that your thread is an expression of your Inner Being, and the 37 threads may be an important message to the Mudcat Communtiy, so we certainly would not want to change your thread title without your permission.
Sincerely,

WE of the The Mudcat Cafe
(Max, Jeff, Joe, Mick, Spaw, Kat, and Shambles)


---


Dear Person who hasn't posted since 1997:
In January, 1997, you started a thread at the Mudcat Cafe titled, "Sidmouth." Every year since then, somebody has started a thread titled "Sidmouth," so there are nine threads with the same title. Would you mind if I changed the title of your thread to "Sidmouth Festival 1997"? We here at the Mudcat Cafe (Max, Jeff, Joe, Mick, Spaw, Kat, and Shambles) realize that the title of your thread may be very important to you, and we would not want to presume to change it without your permission.
Sincerely,
WE of the Mudcat Cafe
(Max, Jeff, Joe, Mick, Spaw, Kat, and Shambles)

---

Shambles, if you ever hear from somebody who objects to the change of title of a thread they originated, please have them contact me. I will be happy to entertain their request that the title be changed back to its original form.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:08 PM

The evidence requested.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 08:35 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bert
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM

The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it.
-Joe Offer- [in brown]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
It would appear that it far from covers it.

Posts claiming the 100th etc post in a thread - must be added to the seemingly endless and increasing list of things that must be deleted. Perfectly logical Jim - just look at the damage to the whole fabric of the forum that will be done if these terrible and subversive contributions are allowed by our volunteers to remain.......

Well apart from all that - what else have the Roman's done for us?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 AM

Well, Ted, I have to admit it - your #200 message was deleted - but there were two botched messages deleted before yours, so you were actually #202....or so.
-Joe Offer-

Here's Ted's (deleted) message:
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: flamenco ted - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:59 AM

200!! Terry, eat my shorts yet again!

------------------------------------------------------------------

The title that the originator gave to the following B/S (non-music) thread was changed.

I blame the Romans…

It was thought important for some unknown reason - for some unknown but trusted volunteer to change the thread title to – I blame the Romans….(for Rabbits). Not sure that we can blame the Romans for this, or indeed the Greeks?

As this concerns me - I will do my best to bring attention (in this thread) to the routine tinkering to contributions like this and any other form of imposed censorship action - but as these seem to be increasing - I will not see them all. Perhaps when you see evidence of these - you could bring attention to them in this thread?


Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 01:49 PM

Unless of course you would not feel safe in posting a view that could be thought in any way to be a criticism of the semi-official line of our current trusted volunteers and their supporters and also become the subject of their displeasure?

If that is the case - then you can send the details to me in a PM and I will post it here to inform other posters of the reality of what our public discussion forum has sadly now become.

For example.......

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-
From the following thread.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=56969#894819


Note that the above statement from Joe Offer was posted two years ago, in response to an anonymous poster who was flooding the forum with lengthy copy-paste messages that were available elsewhere on the Internet. Context is important.
The "Romans" thread should not have been renamed. I changed it back.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:35 PM

Roger,

sorry, but this does not constitute evidence of bad intention (to which you clearly allude) on behalf of the editorial team; you have posted this "evidence" before, and it has been found inadequate.

In particular, the reprimand to the GUEST that was flooding the forum was well-deserved, in my opinion. And I find Joe's explanations for all of the actions (and prompt corrective action in the case of mistaken deletions or changes) fully satisfactory. If anyone finds this to be the case, they are free to say so - you don't need to, you posted the evidence in the first place, so your view is clear.

One warning though: Repeated presentation as "evidence", without the context, of Joe's statements like the one towards the GUEST can appear as a willful attempt to besmirch Joe's (or the editorial team's) character; they in fact appear as judgemental "attacks" on your behalf. If you don't mean them to be taken as such, you should really make this clear.

To summarise:

This is not evidence of evil intent.
This has been satisfactorily explained.
If this is the only evidence you have, further insistence can appear as willful slander.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:40 PM

How come if people on Le Sham's side are so scared of the clones, they don't just post as a Guest?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:45 PM

Sorry - typo: In the second paragraph below I meant to write: "If anyone finds this not to be the case"; though the statement makes sense as it is anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:47 PM

El Greco, maybe I've missed something but I thought shambles latest "evidence" was in response to Joe saying:

Shambles, if you ever hear from somebody who objects to the change of title of a thread they originated, please have them contact me. I will be happy to entertain their request that the title be changed back to its original form.

The "evidence" (where relevant) I see shambles has provided does indeed proove that Joe is willing to reverse an action where appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:53 PM

"The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion??"

yes, indeed it is. That would increase the time and effort to make non-controversial 'tidying' edits immeasurably. It would essentially eliminate needed 'clean up' of multiple threads, etc. Perhaps that would suit YOU just fine....99% of us disagree. Doesn't majority rule PLUS tacit approval of the owner mean anything to you, Shambles?

No, I suppose not...you have the bit of your personal idea of 'righteous indignation' in your teeth, and you will run with it until you drop. True Believers aren't swayed by reason OR authority.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:59 PM

LOL, Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:01 PM

which brings the conversation back to the point when he first brought it up

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:02 PM

10 and 2 added to this post gives a skip-straight cripple mr. onion.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: gnu
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:47 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:09 PM

Do I get any credit for posting Message #866?
Isn't that the Sign of the Breast, or something like that?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:12 PM

No... that's 998, Joe. You got it upside down.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:13 PM

Joe - we will have to check with the High Potent-ate of the Church of the golden Globes - but I suspect you are correct.


Congratulations!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:15 PM

I would think that

0 0

would be more representative of the breasts, or perhaps

U U

with age.................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:18 PM

'Spaw - figures you post on a 69!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:22 AM

Dear Professor Hawking

Or may I call you Stephen? I understand from your publisher's lawyers that you are unhappy with a recent action taken by this library?

I refer to the combination of your book – A Brief History Of Time -with Professor Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Dr Wolfgang von Pedant's two definitive works on the Aardvark – Digging The Dirt and The Truth About Termite Mounds.

I think that I know our readers needs better than you and I think that this combination of the three volumes into one it makes sense and will enable our readers to find what they are looking for much more easily. This is my only motive in this as I have decided that the library's priority consideration must be to its indexing. I am sorry that you may not be in agreement – but "learn to live with it".

The choice of title for this combined work was one suggested by one of the library's best behaved readers. "QUIT FUCKING WITH THE AARDVARK' is a title which I think will best enable our readers to find the information they require.

Yours truly

The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:38 AM

To summarise:

This is not evidence of evil intent.

Calm down George - I agree.

Perhaps before you go on to publicly accuse anyone of 'slander' - you could produce some evidence that I have claimed there was any 'evil intent'?

The evidence provided - proves what I stated it did. Nothing more and nothing less.

However, if someone was to accuse our volunteers of evil intent - a convincing defence against this charge may be difficult. If there is nothing to hide - then what is the harm in being open and making this clear?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:11 AM

I am calm, Roger - and I did not accuse you of anything, publicly or otherwise. Do me the curtesy of reading my words carefully: I warned you (as in "alerted you") that repetition of that statement, after it has been satisfactorily explained to the rest of the participants in this thread, "can appear as willful slander".

Notice the words "can" and "appear".

Repetition as a reinforcing method for an argument belongs to the kindergarden. In the grownup world it appears willful, and can be construed as malicious.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:17 AM

Shambles, if you ever hear from somebody who objects to the change of title of a thread they originated, please have them contact me. I will be happy to entertain their request that the title be changed back to its original form. - Joe Offer

Joe am I take it from this as OFFICIAL that my suggestion is rejected and that you intend to carry on imposing your personal tastes upon the titles chosen by fellow posters - as you wish - without their knowledge or consent? Or (as it is NOT in brown writing) is this just you expressing your personal opinion?

The "evidence" (where relevant) I see shambles has provided does indeed proove that Joe is willing to reverse an action where appropriate. - Jon

Jon I agree that (among other things) this evidence does suggest this. I suspect that it does prove is that some volunteer's personal tastes about what needs to be deleted or changes imposed - are subject to the persoanl tastes of other volunteers who are thought to be more important - who do not seem communicate very well together.

There are times on our forum - when shooting first - and asking questions later - may be proportionate. But should this policy be the only response to every case - as it is not always easy to repair any damage cause by this. Perhaps the best way to deal with this - is NOT after the damage has been done and only after a lot of fuss is publicly made about the imposed change? If asking the original poster's permmission prior to any proposed change - is thought to be -too much trouble - perhaps it is?

Doing something properly tends to bring more benefit than doing it badly. If it is thought to be too mucy trouble to first try and obtain the original poster's permission - perhaps the hoped for benefit of imposing the change without this permission is questionable? Perhaps the benefit of the doubt can always be given to the original poster? If they can't be contacted - then leave their contribution as posted.

---

Yes, Shambles, you may take that as official. Your proposal has been noted, but it has been rejected because it imposes a cumbersome procedure and restriction upon our volunteers, a procedure which appears to be unnecessary. Note, however, that efforts ARE made to respect and preserve the thread originator's work. Ordinarily, the original thread title remains intact in the original message in the thread. Also, thread titles are usually altered by augmentation of the original title by the addition of a clarifying word or phrase, preserving the original title if space allows. If it appears that a thread originator may have trouble locating the thread after a title change, the originator is usually contacted by e-mail or personal message with information on how to locate the thread.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:44 AM

El Greko - Perhaps it is not a good idea to try and put words into other's mouths - especially as anything said here can be so easily retrieved?
This is what you said.

sorry, but this does not constitute evidence of bad intention (to which you clearly allude) on behalf of the editorial team; you have posted this "evidence" before, and it has been found inadequate.

Perhaps you could apologise? For it is clear that my evidence in this post was simply to prove the facts of the two cases. For that purpose - I hope you will now agree that this evidence was perfectly adequate and these facts are established?

Perhaps you can also agree that the evidence in this post was never intended to prove or show (in your words) 'bad intention' and that in many other posts - I have referred to all this routine imposed censorship as 'well-intentioned'?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:59 AM

Roger, I accept your statement that you were not setting out to prove bad intention on behalf of the editorial team, and I apologise for implying that that you did.

However, my warning/alert still stands: constant repetition of that same evidence again and again can appear as willful and of doubtful intent.

As we are on an apologising/retracting tack, would you now care to apologise for claiming that I accused you of slander (when all I said was that repetition CAN APPEAR to be willful and malicious)?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 05:16 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:40 PM

How come if people on Le Sham's side are so scared of the clones, they don't just post as a Guest?

Perhaps this is why? ………But who are you scared of?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 05 - 01:15 PM

So, we have shambles who tirelessly posts to put forward his argument.
And we have the regular little band who tirelessly post to tell shambles he should stop posting.

Why are the regular little band unable to stop themselves opening this thread?
Why do they persist in this game? Do they need to have a person to persecute? It's becoming unsavoury.
Including you, apparently. You seem to keep opening it, and commenting. I guess that means that you are a part of the regular little band, no? If you don't like it, don't open it.

[The anonymous editorial Comment (in BOLD) was in green writing] Robin Hood possibly?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 05:54 AM

As we are on an apologising/retracting tack, would you now care to apologise for claiming that I accused you of slander (when all I said was that repetition CAN APPEAR to be willful and malicious)?

If the same questions repeated questions CAN APPEAR to be wilful and malicious - perhaps the same repeated answers can also? Repeated abusive personal attacks and name-calling - certainly are - whatever the justification given for them.

El Greko - What I said was -

Perhaps before you go on to publicly accuse anyone of 'slander' - you could produce some evidence that I have claimed there was any 'evil intent'?

Did I accuse you of slander here? I did say 'perhaps before you go on to etc-' useing your logic - I am not sure if this can really be considered as accusing you of slander - But I will apolgise.

However, you have stated in other posts - that you have found my evidence 'laughable' and I am still waiting for any evidence to support your claim that this same evidence 'was also found to be inadequate'.

Perhaps you can finally make it clear to the forum - that this evidence is more than adequate to demonstrate the facts of these two cases - whatever your personal opinion may be of those facts?

If folk are feeling truly masochistic - a look back at this thread from the start - will see that many posters are expressing opinions that are not supported by the true facts. And in some cases (it would appear) these opinions are strongly expressed - in full knowledge of these facts - but spite of these facts and the evidence provided. Which could be thought to be - and may in time prove to be - more than a little foolish?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 06:28 AM

"Which could be thought to be - and may in time prove to be - more than a little foolish?"
I have a hunch that - in time - this whole thing won't prove to be anything more than a hill of beans.
At getting on for 900 posts, nothing has changed, the one person who seems convinced that this is an issue is no nearer 'closure' on the matter, no-one else gives a toss and most of us, I'd suggest are just bored witless and reduced to the point of prodding the thread with a stick now and again to see if anything interesting happens.
Sadly Roger's now reduced simply to repeating himself like a parrot with Alzheimer's and - since Spaw's "Don't Fuck With The Aardvark" gem - there's been precious little in the way of decent invective. Let's either make this topic interesting, resolve it or walk away from the wreckage and start another obsessive compulsive thread full of weary cut'n'paste repetition (foxhunting, anyone?).
Anyway, I'm off to see a ewe with a dodgy foot...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM

Gervase said
Anyway, I'm off to see a ewe with a dodgy foot...

That reminds me of something that I was told once

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:01 AM
Max, Jeff, and Joe were off doing other things today, and missed this one. It's a personal attack, and it isn't allowed. Since so many have posted to it, I guess I won't delete it - but I will close it. This is one of the "no-brainers" that the Clones should have deleted early on, no matter what Shambles thinks. Clones, don't let Shambles care you off - you're doing a good job, but you should have deleted this and told us about it.
Bob, I'm sorry this happened.
Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
-Joe Offer-

Well if you can't find a good Aardvark.

If this profound advice -about what not to do with the Aardvark - was so appreciated - I wonder why no one appears to follow it?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,autoshambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: El Greko - PM
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:36 AM

I happen to have met all three 'bullies', GUEST, and my opinion is radically different to yours; I found them to be fair, erudite, logical and open-minded. But hey, the world is big enough for us to have different opinions, so no problem.

What I demonstrate is that the reality of all this (probably well-intentioned) censorship - is not the same as the 'spin' and justification that is given by those volunteers who mainly wish to continue to impose their reactive judgement upon others.

Some other volunteers use their 'editorial comments' to contribute to this discussion (so as not to refresh this thread). Any comment on the issue from anyone will be welcome (whatever their view). But you (as a known volunteer) refreshing this thread by making only one of your usual bullying personal attacks - will only make my point and just make things worse.

Whether my invited contributions to Max's website had ever been the unfortunate victim of imposed censorship by our anonymous volunteers or not has never been the issue (for me).

This is part of Max's website that he has provided for all of us for open public discussion. So in that sense, although the website is Max's – the forum is ours. His stated role in this is only to 'facilitate'

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,autoshambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM

Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules
From: Max - PM

Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.

The ability of our volunteers to read the future - to delete and close threads BEFORE they contain anything that may cause offence - is not logical Jim. As every thread has the potential to turn 'into another slugfest' perhaps all threads should be routinely deleted or closed by our all-seeing volunteers - before they can and perhaps the rest of us will just have to 'learn to live with it. For that is the logical conclusion of such imposed judgement.

The facts are all here – you judge……But these facts will demonstrate that if you should post and assume to judge our volunteer judges (in any way other than being totally uncritical)- you should probably be prepared for them to mount abusive personal attacks, incite others to do this and encourage the idea that this practice is humourous - when undertaken against certain (safe) targets.

This evidence has been provided or linked to in this thread. There is no shortage of such evidence of our forum now being shaped by this - but if you are determined to hold and express a view that ignores all of this evidence - I am not sure why you would expect me or anyone else to take your opinion seriously.

Whether my invited contributions to Max's website had ever been the unfortunate victim of imposed censorship by our anonymous volunteers or not has never been the issue (for me).

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:56 AM

Roger, your statement to me is there for all to see and judge whether you were accusing me of slander or not.

Your refusal to consider that you may have offended me and to apologise (as I readily did) also stands there for all to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:15 AM

Calm down Bill. It is not as if Election Clerks have changed your vote for you - as they thought that it looked more tidy to have equal piles of votes on the table.

"The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion??"

Bill D says.
yes, indeed it is. That would increase the time and effort to make non-controversial 'tidying' edits immeasurably.

Is time or effort really a factor - where there is no question of any offensive content? We know Bill that you would always be safe from such impositions but are their not more important considerations at stake than the volunteer's time and effort? You may always agree to any proposed changes - so would most posters, I suspect. If a job is worth doing - perhaps the time and effort should be given to ensure it is done well - or if the time and effort is not available to do it properly - not done at all?

And if non-controversial 'tidying' edits were only ever undertaken at the request of the originator - that would ensure that these were always in fact non-controversial - wouldn't it.

It would essentially eliminate needed 'clean up' of multiple threads, etc.

Bill please explain why you and 99% of posters think this? Who are these 'clean ups' so desparately needed by? All 99% of us? How do you propose to support this rather surreal claim? Or do you always think that 99% of the people agree with you?

No one is suggesting that such 'clean ups' could not still take place. But as they would only happen with the originator's permission and never be imposed upon them against their wishes - these actions could never be confused as routine censorship - could they?

Is this really such a terrible suggestion?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:31 AM

Time and effort IS a factor. We are talking about unpaid volunteers who are donating their time and effort to the Mudcat. Max's Mudcat. No matter what Max said 6 years ago about it being "our" forum, it is still Max's Mudcat. In order to help him manage the Mudcat, he enlisted Joe, Jeff, and the Joeclones a few years ago. They work to enhance the Mudcat experience for ALL of its members as much as is humanly possible. This takes the form of trying to keep it clean of vile personal attacks, spam, pornography and such. It also consists of making retrieval easier by correcting spelling, linking threads, deleting multiple posts, and other editing functions that are essential to facilitate data retrieval. I for one appreciate that. When I am looking for a song, I don't want to have to search on every possible misspelling of "Diddle My Fiddle" in order to find it. If people were being paid by the hour to do this, they might not mind added hassles interfering with their efficiency. As they are donating their time, we owe it to them to make it less onerous for them.

In addition, they are not "imposing their personal judgement." They are exercising their judgement on behalf of Max. They are not always right. There is also room for disagreement. Joe has the authority to overrule somebody's judgement if, in his judgement (also exercised on behalf of Max) it is warranted. Max obviously is pleased or at least satisfied with the way this judgement is being exercised, or else he would make changes.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 09:48 AM

Ya' know Roger, a lot of those 'Catters so concerned you say over Joe's censorship, appear to be asking for it over on the Mehlberg threads. Joe had plenty of time and opportunity to "impose his will" and did not. He posted later and explained some and asked for more input.

That's what goes on almost all of the time. Now go and dig a few termites or something and we'll talk again later..............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:05 PM

Well let's look at the reasons given - so far - as to why my suggestion is so terrible.

That posters would respond in PMs at length and tie the server up.
If this is a real concern - it (or the solution) is not a problem confined to my suggestion.

That posters may not be contactable.
Well the answer is to leave the post alone - as this 'indexing' is not a matter of life or death - just a matter of showing mutual respect.

The time and effort of the volunteers involved in asking would increase if they had to ask for prior permission.
This is one factor but if a job is worth doing - it is worth making the time and finding the effort to do it well. No one is forcing our volunteers to volunteer and if they find the demands too taxing - they can un-volunteer.

It is is not really honest to bring into this discussion of the routine imposed 'indexing' - the other fine work our volunteers may be doing to protect us from "vile personal attacks, spam, pornography and such" .

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:21 PM

Your suggestion has been rejected by the powers that be as impractical and unworkable. That should be it. That you continue in your quest is peevish and childish.

There is nothing dishonest in bringing up all of the work that the volunteer Joeclones do. Anything that increases their workload unnecessarily is to be avoided.

You have consistently failed to prove to anybody's satisfaction why the changes you advocate are necessary. As you say, it is not a matter of life and death.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:42 PM

The time and effort that our volunteers would save on non-urgent routine 'indexing' could be spent on protecting us from "vile personal attacks, spam, pornography and such".

In other words protecting us from Catspaw. *Smiles*

Has my suggestion in fact been rejected by 'the powers that be'?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jeffp
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:45 PM

Since it hasn't been implemented, I think it's pretty obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:50 PM

Not too sure if you can actually tell if - not doing something - can be implemented.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:52 PM

Yes, Shambles, you may take that as official. Here, I'll put it in brown:

Your proposal has been noted, but it has been rejected because it imposes a cumbersome procedure and restriction upon our volunteers, a procedure which appears to be unnecessary. Note, however, that efforts ARE made to respect and preserve the thread originator's work, as space allows. Ordinarily, the original thread title remains intact in the original message in the thread. Also, thread titles are usually altered by augmentation of the original title by the addition of a clarifying word or phrase, preserving the original title if space allows. If it appears that a thread originator may have trouble locating the thread after a title change, the originator is usually contacted by e-mail or personal message with information on how to locate the thread.

This has been our procedure for a number of years. While it does not follow your specifications exactly, it does attempt to respect the concerns you have expressed.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:21 PM

I hereby invite anyone who feels they have been unfairly censored in the past to act on Gervase's suggestion and "let us have it".
If no such actions take place in the next few days, this clearly and irrefutably is not, and has never been an issue.(El Greko, 28/04/2005)

29 hours later, not a peep on the above. No pent up frustration by those censored in the past. Not even arising out of the profanity threads discussion, though a "GUEST" there was grouching about double standards (it turned out he did not understand that it is not profanity that gets censored, but personal attacks).

Meanwhile, the "powers that be" have not acted on Roger's suggestions. Further corroboration that all this is not viewed as an issue by them either.

Roger, you do such good work both on Mudcat and on other fora, not only on the internet, on subjects that are so much more important to this community and the world; I am thinking of your sterling work on the PEL, where you kept us all informed and fought like a lion.

Perhaps you should consider now that this non-issue is not worth your efforts or indeed anyone else's, and focus your energies on the things that do matter - a lot more. And I am sure your efforts will be a lot more appreciated then.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 07:30 AM

Joe Offer says (in official brown writing).

Your proposal has been noted, but it has been rejected because it imposes a cumbersome procedure and restriction upon our volunteers, a procedure which appears to be unnecessary.

Joe

Your earlier opinion was that the priority on our forum should be given to its readers (rather than its contributors). Is now your opinion that priority on our forum should NOW be given to its volunteers? .....Is this now set to appear in the 'rules'?

It would appear that imposiion by anonymous volunteers of 'cumbersome procedure and restriction upon' ordinary contributors - is thought (at least by by you) to be very neccesary?

This is not a double standard - is it?

As Catspaw would say (over and over).
Have you discussed your concerns with Max?
If so, what was his response?
If not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 01:34 PM

I don't see that as evidence of double standard, but rather of double (indeed multiple) considerations needed to be taken concurrently. Some things you do for one reason, some things you do for another.

- you index threads as a consideration towards readers
- but you don't seek pre-approval of contributors, as a consideration towards volunteer workload

No double standard; just multiple considerations. This is not a case of the same criterion applied differently, but of two different criteria.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:44 PM

No - I was sure it wasn't a double standard.

Do I take that - from now on that all personal opinions from our volunteers will be posted normally and that and official statements and editing comments will be confined to the facts and be in brown writing - to enable poster's to know the difference?

Or would this increase the volunteer's workload too much? If so - perhaps we need some more volunteers?

Any volunteers?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 May 05 - 02:48 AM

Gee, Shambles, when Max said, "You get to make the rules," you took it a bit too seriously. You do get to make the rules that govern your own conduct. As Shula said so well many years ago, "You are responsible for your own wake."

But your attempts to make rules for the volunteers are not appreciated. We are rational, responsible people; and we do not need your supervision.

-Joe Offer-

896

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 May 05 - 07:58 AM

Gee, Shambles, when Max said, "You get to make the rules," you took it a bit too seriously. You do get to make the rules that govern your own conduct. As Shula said so well many years ago, "You are responsible for your own wake."
-Joe Offer-

Joe - Do we assume from the fact that it was posted in the only way that the second-class Mudcatters are able to post - a method which refreshes the thread - and NOT in editorial brown writing - that this is ONLY your personal view?

Or are you saying that it is OFFICIAL - that I and other Mudcatters are not now to take what Max (the owner of the site and originator of our forum) says - seriously?

Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules
From: Max - PM
Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.

It should be clear to all - that Max was referring to 'the rules' on what B/S is. And NOT "the rules that govern your own conduct".

Do you accept Joe - that these are your words - and not those of the site's owner and originator. Unless you are saying that Max does not own this place now and the volunteers now do? Sadly - this senario is looking more - day by day - to be the case.

I feel very strongly that self imposed 'rules of self conduct' and the example given by and set by this - IS just about all the 'rules' that have ever been needed on OUR forum.

Perhaps those who do not think this is enough and tell us that we should ignore the site owner's wishes- and feel qualified to impose their personal judgement upon fellow posters without their knowledge or permission - and who obviously have no trust in ordinary Mudcatters being able to censor themselves - are the ones who should start a site where they can impose as many petty rules as they wish ?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:20 AM

I wish that "self imposed rules of conduct" were sufficient these days...but...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:21 AM

900
...I fear they are not. Too many trolls, too many axes wanting grinding...too many attacks, too much abuse

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:23 AM

(Sorry Roger, couldn't resist stealing that one from LF or Ted)

In truth, if this forum mirrors the outside world, we need both self control and some (light) policing.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 May 05 - 09:22 AM

Possibly the 'light policing' is in fact now more of a problem that what it was set-up to deal with? Yes it is well-intentioned - but is it now possible to distinguish this from the original problem?

1 Do abusive personal attacks from our volunteers - protect posters from abusive personal attacks?

2 Does anonymous posting (and imposed editing) from our volunteers - protect posters from anonymous posting?

3 Does bullying by our volunteers - protect posters from being bullied?

4 Do threats from our volunteers - prevent posters from being threatened?

As no one has any control over what others choose to post Is it not about accepting this and setting the example for others to follow?

If the example set by our volunteers (and their supporters) is one of making abusive personal attacks – anonymous posting – bullying – and threatening and all this is excused and justified – is it any real surprise if things just get worse?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 May 05 - 12:19 PM

Have you discussed your concerns with Max?
If so, did he respond?
If not, why not?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 May 05 - 04:01 PM

He may have said - OUIT FUCKING WITH THE AARDVARK?

But whatever Max says - Joe now says tells us that we should not take anything that Max (the site owner) says - too seriously.

Joe also tells us that our volunteers are now the most important priority on our forum - perhaps they are? But perhaps even if they are not - it is not wise for ordinary posters to openly question this?

But your attempts to make rules for the volunteers are not appreciated. We are rational, responsible people; and we do not need your supervision.
-Joe Offer-

Unlike our volunteers - who appear to have a low opinion of ordinary posters - I know that the vast majority of Mudcatters are "rational, responsible people" (with a few notable exceptions).

They don't need your newly imposed 'rules' or your supervision either.

To be fair Joe why don't you take your 'rules' and your volunteers and go to Jon's site and leave the rest of us in peace? We may just survive perfectly well without you..............

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: gnu
Date: 01 May 05 - 04:33 PM

OUIT FUCKING WITH THE AARDVARK.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 May 05 - 03:40 AM

This is sound advice - coming from a GNU?
*Smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 02 May 05 - 03:45 AM

Crossing a gnu with an aardvark - hmmmm, let's see. Something horny that can suck the ants off your pants?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 May 05 - 04:53 AM

A song about the life of the gnu (or the wildebeast).

Born on the run

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 05 - 05:12 AM

Objection to Joe Offer

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 May 05 - 12:33 PM

Wolfgang ...
It is a sad day on our forum when folk post and encourage others to shout these honestly held and moderately expressed views down or to gang-up and play elaborate and silly games to ridicule them. It is a sad day indeed on our forum - when this sort of treatment of the views of fellow posters is thought to be acceptable. (Shambles)

Shambles,
I agree mostly. My whole point was and is that you are the one engaged since ages in this game of ridiculing etc. I did the selective quoting, the juxtaposition of thoughts without any meaningful connection, and the repetition on purpose. You play the same game but sadly you seem to be serious about it.

You write the best parodies of meaningful posts here, we can only add to that in a way not comparable to the original.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 May 05 - 01:12 PM

Shambles,
I agree mostly. My whole point was and is that you are the one engaged since ages in this game of ridiculing etc.

I suppose I must answer? Yes Wolfgang - I am ganging-up with myself.

Perhaps anyone reading this thread from the start will be better qualified than you or I - to judge the truth of your statement? Yes I am serious about the loss of basic freedoms on our forum - as I am about this happening elsewhere for no good reason.

Unlike you - I am playing no games and I would question why you so keen to join in with games that you (mostly) agree with me - are sad?

I will be happy just to be able to express and evidence my views - as best as I can - and to leave the final judgement of these views and suggestions to them? And to try and address any views made on the issue - rather than to concentrate on judging the worth of those who post them on a discussion forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 05 - 01:21 PM

hey shambles! How many have chimed in on this or the other censorship threads agreeing with you? Now compare the number of comments that have disagreed with you. consider.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 03 May 05 - 01:29 PM

"Perhaps anyone reading this thread from the start"

Shambles - You've GOT to be kidding ?? 911 posts of you going on and on about a NONISSUE and you expect anyone to read all of this from the beginning ?

If you had used half of the time you've spent on this nonsense doing something constructive - like writing letters for Amnesty International { now thats a job for you } or making sandwiches for the needy at your local soup kitchen - do you know how productive you would have been ?

But no - you're concerned about "censorship" on the Mudcat.

One definition I've heard for insanity is repeating the same behavior over and over expecting different results. If thats true - could you be insane ? I'm worried about you.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 May 05 - 02:05 AM

Shambles - You've GOT to be kidding ?? 911 posts of you going on and on about a NONISSUE and you expect anyone to read all of this from the beginning ?

Any poster that posts their opinion to this thread now - without reading the entire thread - will probably not be commentating in knowledge of all the evidence so perhaps the worth of any opinion expressed without this knowledge - is questionable?

In truth - it will not take very long to read this thread - for perhaps less than half of the posts do actually address the evidence. The one's that don't - tend to be short.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 04 May 05 - 04:21 AM

Hey, Roger, here's a challenge...
Can you condense the evidence you have for unacceptable* censorship on the Mudcat into one 250-word post? That means cutting out all the equivocation and indignation and just putting the FACTS down. Instead of all the waffle and huffing and puffing, try to convince us.
Then, if anyone agrees with your manifesto on censorship, they can say so here. If they don't, you must surely accept that it's a dead duck and go and lie down in a darkened room for a while before saddling up your next hobbyhorse (Amnesty would indeed be a worthwhile one).

*And I mean unacceptable - arbitrary deletion of multiple posts of the same message, spam and porn links is surely acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 May 05 - 05:59 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:40 AM

At this rate - you are looking well set for the 800th Ted.

Perhaps a look back again at the evidence at this point would be a good thing - for the benifit of the more recent arrivals to judge.

Without too much effort - there have been two imposed editing actions - that after being brought to light here - have been judged to have been wrong.

1. Flamenco Ted's claim for the 100th post which was deleted (from this thread) by a still anonymous volunteer - when the Chief of the Mudcat Editing team was not even aware that any editing had taken place. This had to be changed back again.

2. And the change imposed by a still anonymous volunteer to the title of a B/s non-music related thread. This had to be re-re-named.

Now you might still think all this does not amount to a bag of beans - (you may not feel like this - if the imposition had been made upon your contributions). Which were in no way abusive (unlike many other posts here - which have been safe from any editing action).

But if bringing these mistakes to public attention is thought to be a fuss about nothing - then in my view - so must the initial imposition and all the factors that lead to this now routine 'tinkering' upon the invited contributions of fellow posters - without their knowledge or agreement?

Is it really 'too complicated' to review and finally sort this out - to show equal respect to all contributions? Is not rather that the whole current system too complicated, secretive and divisive? There is clear evidence that it is not under any effective control and also that those who feel qualified to impose judgement upon their fellow posters do not wish to change anything.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:08 PM

The evidence requested.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 08:35 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bert
Date: 06 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM

The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it.
-Joe Offer- [in brown]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
It would appear that it far from covers it.

Posts claiming the 100th etc post in a thread - must be added to the seemingly endless and increasing list of things that must be deleted. Perfectly logical Jim - just look at the damage to the whole fabric of the forum that will be done if these terrible and subversive contributions are allowed by our volunteers to remain.......

Well apart from all that - what else have the Roman's done for us?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 AM

Well, Ted, I have to admit it - your #200 message was deleted - but there were two botched messages deleted before yours, so you were actually #202....or so.
-Joe Offer-

Here's Ted's (deleted) message:
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: flamenco ted - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:59 AM

200!! Terry, eat my shorts yet again!

------------------------------------------------------------------

The title that the originator gave to the following B/S (non-music) thread was changed.

I blame the Romans…

It was thought important for some unknown reason - for some unknown but trusted volunteer to change the thread title to – I blame the Romans….(for Rabbits). Not sure that we can blame the Romans for this, or indeed the Greeks?

As this concerns me - I will do my best to bring attention (in this thread) to the routine tinkering to contributions like this and any other form of imposed censorship action - but as these seem to be increasing - I will not see them all. Perhaps when you see evidence of these - you could bring attention to them in this thread?


Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 01:49 PM

Unless of course you would not feel safe in posting a view that could be thought in any way to be a criticism of the semi-official line of our current trusted volunteers and their supporters and also become the subject of their displeasure?

If that is the case - then you can send the details to me in a PM and I will post it here to inform other posters of the reality of what our public discussion forum has sadly now become.

For example.......

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-
From the following thread.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=56969#894819


Note that the above statement from Joe Offer was posted two years ago, in response to an anonymous poster who was flooding the forum with lengthy copy-paste messages that were available elsewhere on the Internet. Context is important.
The "Romans" thread should not have been renamed. I changed it back.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Gervase
Date: 04 May 05 - 06:50 AM

WAY more than 250 words there Roger.
Bong!
Try again.
And think about the word 'unacceptable' The copy-paste stuff above is piffling.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 May 05 - 02:31 PM

Piffling = small and of little importance.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 05 - 07:06 AM

Some more interesting discussion on this subject - can be found on the following.

Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu Imposed changed from 'Objection to …. …[named poster].

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 05 - 12:57 PM

Oh, shut up, you boring t*it.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 May 05 - 06:21 AM

If there have been any lessons learned and changes made to the current censorship 'system' - as a result of these mistakes - perhaps this can be made clear?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 10 May 05 - 07:09 PM

shambles...they won't give in... just leave it...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 10 May 05 - 11:46 PM

This is turning into the Mother of all Censorship Threads. I won't be posting again.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 May 05 - 03:06 AM

The imposed closure of 3 threads is discussed in the following.

Complaints vs mudslinging

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 11 May 05 - 06:15 PM

One person on this thread seems to be inebriated with the exuberance of their own verbosity to the detriment of the site as a whole. I have sometimes had to eat dirt on the "Cat" as I have said things I should not have....may do well for one or two others to do the same!
What a shambles!!!!!!!
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 May 05 - 01:26 PM

The closure of the three Damien Barber threads should have been discussed here, rather than diverting the discussion of the issue in the Barber threads by turning it into another self-serving Shambles campaign. It would be nice if I could be able to admit that I wasn't completely happy with the outcome of the Barber fiasco, and it would be nice to have a calm, reasonable discussion of what should be done the next time. If I had to do it over, I would have re-titled the first thread to make it seem to be less of a direct attack on an individual, and then I might have left it at that - but hindsight is 20-20, they say...

But no, discussion of things like that is not possible at Mudcat, because Shambles sees a campaign issue in every click of the "edit" button. I can't admit misjudgments, because Shambles saves my every word for future "ammunition." He doesn't really care about free expression or improving things around here - all he wants is to impose his will by bullying everyone with his smothering blanket of copy-paste babblings.

He'll go on and on for weeks about the how unfair it is that certain titles get ten spaces and others get 14 (hint: if you use a preformatted tag like "lyr req," you don't lose those 8 spaces in the title box, so your title will be longer - and there are still two spaces for the editors to play with). He paints even the most innocuous editorial action as some sort of conspiracy.

There ARE valid editorial issues that I'd like to discuss with the community in general, but any such discussion gets buried in the babblings and accusations and repetitions that Shambles dumps on us. I'd really like to answer valid questions, but Shambles has forced me into a corner where I can't answer any of them because he asks the same question in three different threads on the same day - and then raises the very same question in three more threads, three weeks later. That being the case, it's best for me to just keep my mouth shut, and just let Shambles babble on without my answering. But that means that people with reasonable questions don't get answers.

The worst is that Shambles took his campaign from the Help Forum to the general forum, and now he thinks he's entitled to hijack other threads with his campaign.

So, in his perverted campaign to promote his narrow vision of "freedom," Shambles makes all of us a bit less free.

It's too bad, isn't it?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 12 May 05 - 01:36 PM

yep

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 May 05 - 10:24 AM

Yes - I have to admit - its all my fault. I am really sorry that I now appear to make life so difficult for our volunteers......

However none of us ordinary posters are perfect and as someone who felt qualified to do this - whilst imposing judgement upon their fellow posters - once said 'learn to live with it'.

Someone also said: 'If you don't like the heat - why don't you get out of the kitchen'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Re The Mudcat

I asked the following question in the above thread. Not had an answer yet. Perhaps I will get one in this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Re the Mudcat
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 19 May 05 - 03:16 AM

Clinton...and all you cowardly assholes who won't USE your names...shut the fuck up and let 'em work on it, and be glad you can use the place MOST of the time!

Perhaps it can be explained why the abusive personal attack and anti-social behaviour above from Bill D - is safe from censorship - when the following in the same thread is not?

Subject: RE: BS: Re the Mudcat
From: Martin Gibson - PM
Date: 18 May 05 - 11:11 PM

Ebbie, I believe you when you say you are slow.

I also [bleep] (for antisocial behavior) believe

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 19 May 05 - 10:31 AM

*sigh* ALMOST seven days

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 May 05 - 10:34 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM

Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think.
I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones.
-Joe Offer-

Are they still - officially "fair game" for our anonymous volunteers? Or has something changed? If something has changed - perhaps this can be made clear?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 19 May 05 - 10:40 AM

Why? despite anything you may think neither Max nor any of the people HE has delegated the right to perform work on this site owe you any explanation for any action of theirs.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 May 05 - 10:43 AM

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-
From the following thread.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=56969#894819

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 19 May 05 - 10:47 AM

yep

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 May 05 - 10:57 AM

From: brucie

When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Re the Mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 19 May 05 - 11:29 AM

It's back from holidays, refreshed and reinvigorated.
Civilisation is safe again.
Excerpt from Cavafis' "Barbarians":

"Why this sudden bewilderment, this confusion?
(How serious people's faces have become.)
Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
everyone going home lost in thought?

    Because night has fallen and the barbarians haven't come.
    And some of our men just in from the border say there are no barbarians any longer.

Now what's going to happen to us without barbarians?
They were, those people, a kind of solution. "

Hai shiktir

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,jOhn
Date: 19 May 05 - 03:43 PM

shambles is bloody moan to mutch.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 May 05 - 03:44 AM

Another closed thread - despite some fine music being linked from it.

Bobert v. Martin Gibson Pickers Duel....

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 May 05 - 03:54 AM

This one hasn't been closed (yet). Despite having no music links.

Please close this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 May 05 - 04:18 AM

I see this scum has risen to the top again!
Can one die of terminal boredom?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 23 May 05 - 04:30 AM

Another closed thread - despite some fine music being linked from it.

Bobert v. Martin Gibson Pickers Duel....

The last post is:

Subject: RE: BS: Bobert v. Martin Gibson Pickers Duel....
From: Bobert
Date: 22 May 05 - 08:26 PM

NOTICE:

Because this thread has turned into a potty mouth forum for Martin, I, as the one who started it, have asked Max to close it....

I am sorry to all my Mudville friends who thought, like me, that it might be a little fun... It hasn't been...

Max?

MAX??????

BObert

I try again Shambles (read the post and) ASK MAX

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 23 May 05 - 06:54 AM

Perhaps it is a matter of who is asking - and who is being asked?

And who is not being consulted at all?

But why ask for a thread to be closed or deleted? If you don't open a thread and do not post to it - for you - the thread is is closed.

Why deny other posters the opportunity to try and improve it?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: JennyO
Date: 23 May 05 - 06:57 AM

I think terminal stupidity is more like it.

my post on "Please close this thread"

And it's not lost forever. It was only closed, not deleted.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 May 05 - 07:18 AM

There is a sound clip of some fine guitar picking by Justa Picker in an otherwise pejorative BS thread down below (Bobert/MG slugfest). I would like to see and hear more of this type of music posted up here in the Music Section.

Justa Picker's sound clip

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 May 05 - 02:03 PM

You may suspect from its title that the following thread The piano man   is a music-related thread.

However, perhaps partly due to not wishing to have our anonymous volunteers rush to impose their judgement and demote this thread to below the line - the originator used the B/S prefix.

Is it possible for our anonymous volunteers to move this thread from the B/S section to join the other music-related threads? Or is this not possible?

It seems to work quickly enough - the other way around?

Current policy is that if the originator of a thread designates it as BS: it is left as BS , or moved there if the tag wasn't set. This complies with volunteers not imposing their judgement on others. I would think you would be pleased joeclone

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 May 05 - 03:11 PM

There's no pleasing some people.
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 25 May 05 - 03:42 PM

No - they just please themselves.
Or did I mean "pleasure"?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 May 05 - 07:47 PM

Current policy is that if the originator of a thread designates it as BS: it is left as BS , or moved there if the tag wasn't set. This complies with volunteers not imposing their judgement on others. I would think you would be pleased joeclone

So if an originator does not make the optional choice of a prefix - volunteers can rush to impose their judgement upon others - to send a thread to the B/S section without the originator's wishes. All for the common good

But the current policy is that even when the originator later posts to say they were unsure and now wish the thread to be in the music section - our volunteers will ignore the originators wishes - this request and the fact that the thread is obviously in the wrong place?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 May 05 - 08:12 PM

Shambles, you seem to forget that there are old threads marked BS: that don't have the tag set.

Also (at least last time I looked) if someone, not realising, omited the prefix but gave the thread title as BS: it would not have the tag set.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 May 05 - 08:20 PM

Congratulations! A NEW ISSUE!!! This one makes no fuckin' sense either but who cares? It's bullshit of the first magnitude all laid out to make perfect sense in Roger's World. Anyone who has ever watched this place for any period KNOWS that when a non-music thread is posted in the upper section, within 15 minutes someone has posted on the thread and also generally in the Help forum that they are incensed and that the thread isn't "Music" and should be moved. Invariably this happens well before Joe or a clone arrive. I've posted back on a few of these myself saying, "Relax and give them a chance!" Ask Uncle Dave-O.

Add in Jon's point above plus the stretch you had to go to to even imagine this one as an issue and I figure you're worn to hell out! Put this one along with the others where the sun don't shine and go do something botanical or metallurgical or just mecahnical.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 May 05 - 08:25 PM

The fact is that this thread is in the wrong place and the originator has requested that it be moved to the right place.

It is a music-related thread subject yet our anonymous volunteers seem to think that they should ignore the originators request and seem to think that current policy means that this thread is destined to stay down in the B/S.

If it was judged by them to be a B/S thread on the music related section - our anonymous volunteers would have rushed to move it - on the most flimsy of excuses and without the oginator's knowledge or consent.

The loyal defence of this 'jobsworth attitude' is simply making our forum look even more silly by the day.

---

People are free to request that the category of a thread be changed. The appropriate place to ask is by personal message to Joe or Jeff, or in the Help Forum. As of this date, I have received no such request - from the thread originator, or from anyone else. Change requests posted in the thread itself are likely to be missed.
I looked at the thread when it started and decided it was a human-interest thing that could be considered either music or non-music - so I left it where it was. I just checked the thread now, and there still is very little music information in it. So, no, it won't be moved, even if somebody asks me to move it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 May 05 - 08:34 PM

Subject: RE: BS: The way it should be......
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 25 May 05 - 06:11 PM

Your Socialism vs. Capitalism thread. It has been completely deleted, as of the last time I looked for it.]snip[

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 May 05 - 08:47 PM

Sorry.....I passed out for a few there when I read this thread was in the wrong place. I'm sure you have it all documented in 5 part harmony with feeling and that you're dying to tell us all about it but I don't particularly give a shit and I doubt anyone else does either. I did try to find a more accurate category than BS where this thread might fit, but there is no category label, "Great, Huge, Smelly, Putrid and Petrified, Flaming, Gargantuan, Mountain-Sized Piles of the Finest Bullshit Capable of Being Produced By The Lunatic Mind of a Tight-Ass Broke-Dick Mamalucca Who Can Suck A Root As Long As A Rake Handle While Singing Highlights of Gilbert and Sullivan."

Couldn't find that label tag so I guess I just have to figure this thread as BS! Sorry we can't be more accurate. Here, have another rake handle and sing "Modern Major General".......

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 25 May 05 - 08:50 PM

Man, Shambles! You are reallllllly grasping at straws! As a matter of fact, not conjecture or opinion, I have started a thread that should have been in BS but forgot the prefix. Joe has asked if it was alright with me if he moved it down, and I appreciated it. He did not "rush" to change it, as you suggest. Your image of Joe and others is so distorted and self-serving that it makes me wonder. Don't you have something more constructive to do with your life?

This thread long ago passed beyond the point of ridiculous.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 May 05 - 08:55 PM

I forget. What was the original beef?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 25 May 05 - 08:57 PM

Well Jerry I suggested he do the rake handles with the G&S highlights. Anything else he could do?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 May 05 - 03:17 AM

Use a hoe and do S&M highlights?
G..

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 May 05 - 10:33 AM

As a matter of fact, not conjecture or opinion, I have started a thread that should have been in BS but forgot the prefix. Joe has asked if it was alright with me if he moved it down, and I appreciated it. He did not "rush" to change it, as you suggest. Your image of Joe and others is so distorted and self-serving that it makes me wonder.

Jerry all that I asking for is that everone receives the same consideration from Joe as you do - if that was the case - no one would need to have any complaint and would see our anonymous volunteers in the same light as you do. Until every poster's contribution does receive the same treatment as yours - my concern will be for those who do not receive the same treatment as you. Perhaps you could try and see the issue from those who are not as fortunate as you?
......................................................................


People are free to request that the category of a thread be changed. The appropriate place to ask is by personal message to Joe or Jeff, or in the Help Forum. As of this date, I have received no such request - from the thread originator, or from anyone else. Change requests posted in the thread itself are likely to be missed.
I looked at the thread when it started and decided it was a human-interest thing that could be considered either music or non-music - so I left it where it was. I just checked the thread now, and there still is very little music information in it. So, no, it won't be moved, even if somebody asks me to move it.
-Joe Offer-

Joe -
The point about the 'Piano man' thread was that it was posted to a music site in the chance that those interested in music may be able to help indentify and help the individual involved. If it were moved to the music-related section (where it quite obviously rightly belongs) - there is more chance that this help may be forthcoming.

It would certainly be a shame if your personal judgement - imposed in the face of the originator's request for their own contribution - resulted in this poor soul's period of misery being made longer than it needed to be.... Perhaps you can reconsider?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 26 May 05 - 10:42 AM

Shambles - the point was that the Piano Man thread was STARTED BY THE ORIGINATOR AS A BS THREAD. This implies a conscious thought that originator did not WISH to place the thread in the music section.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 May 05 - 10:42 AM

This thread was moved from BS to the music-related section - without too much fuss............

Its not BS

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 May 05 - 10:46 AM

Shambles - the point was that the Piano Man thread was STARTED BY THE ORIGINATOR AS A BS THREAD. This implies a conscious thought that originator did not WISH to place the thread in the music section.

MMario - Yes that is true but if you read the thread you will see that they have changed their mind............We all entitled to screw-up. Some of us even change our minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 26 May 05 - 11:17 AM

Shambles - Who killed JFK ? Perhaps the joeclones ? And can anyone offer proof that Joe Offer doesn't really own Area 51 ?

Please search this message for the secret encoded message for your eyes only. If you can't find it - then it's been censored. Again.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 May 05 - 01:49 PM

I just checked the thread now, and there still is very little music information in it. So, no, it won't be moved, even if somebody asks me to move it.
-Joe Offer-

Do you think that what is judged as there curently being very little music information - could be due to the fact that it is a music-related thread with a B/S prefix with other B/S threads in the B/S section?

The point is that if this music-related thread was moved to where it should be -with other music-related threads - perhaps there may be more music-related information posted to it and that there may even be a chance of someone being alerted who may know who the 'piano man' may be?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 26 May 05 - 02:14 PM

See Joe - If it wasn't for you and your interferance the piano man would be home with family by now. Shame on you. It's all your fault.

My guess is that Shambles lives in an apartment that is either totally spotless with absolutly nothing out of place - or it's a complete wreck. Shambles - am I right ?

Will this thread outlive the mother of all BS threads ???

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 May 05 - 02:15 PM

I propose that this thread be posted above the line so that everyone may benefit from its sparkling wisdom. Besides, now and again, music is mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 May 05 - 02:52 PM

Ebbie -

Perhaps we should go back to not having the line at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 31 May 05 - 03:10 PM

Shambles,

THE LINE IS OPTIONAL for each and every registered user of Mudcat, and I bet there is a non-lined URL for guest entry as well.

As usual, it's IN THE FAQ.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: gnu
Date: 31 May 05 - 04:55 PM

I haven't posted to this thread yet. I have nothing to say. I just want to make sure The Shambles doesn't miss this thread. I am quite sure he/she will want to add something.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 04:07 AM

As usual, it's IN THE FAQ.

As for technical things, Mudcatters should refrain from posting embedded pictures and sounds from other sites because this slows down the loading of threads (use clickable links instead).

Obviously Max does not read Joe's FAQ. Or does not intend to take any notice of it - if he does read it. I notice also that our volunteers have not imposed their editing judgement upon this open flouting of the rules............*Smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 04:26 AM

shambles,

a) Max set the rule.

b) Max or Jeff added the code to stop users using the img tag to embed images. Joe can't do that.

c) The embedded images you mentioned are not from other sites but located on the Mudcat servers. Right click on them and look at properties - you will see they are on Max's personal folder on www.mudcat.org.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 04:40 AM

Jon, you're confusing Shamble's intentions with facts. He never lets facts get in the way of a good moan, though. He just wanted to send a barb, whether fact-justified or not - he did it, and is happy now.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 05:33 AM

Thanks for the PM Roger and I am sure Max appreciates your PM's.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Yawn
Date: 01 Jun 05 - 06:17 AM

HE'S BAAAAACK!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 10:06 AM

The Investigator's Song
(Harold Rome)

I've got a problem that is bothering me;
I've got a real unsolvable mystery;
It would stun G.K. Chesterton, Foil Conan Doyle,
Drive Sherlock Holmes to the wall;
Stump Humphrey Bogart and Bacall;

CHORUS:
Who's gonna investigate the man who investigates the man who investigates me?
I don't doubt my loyalty, But how about what his may be?
Who'll check the record of the man who checks the record of the man who checks the record of mine?
Seems to me there's gonna be an awfully long line.
One more problem puzzles me; Pardon my strange whim.
But who's gonna investigate the man who investigates the man who investigates him?

Who's gonna investigate the man who investigates the man who investigates me?
Maybe they won't like the face he's wearing;
Maybe he'll have too much brass.
Maybe he's a guy who's fond of herring;
Maybe he drinks tea from a glass.
Believe me, brother, that won't pass.
CHORUS

Who's gonna investigate the man who investigates the man who investigates me?
Maybe they won't like the books he's reading;
Or the way he wants to pray.
Maybe he won't have the proper breeding;
Maybe he ran T.V.A.
Believe me, brother, That's out-ray.
CHORUS

Who's gonna investigate the man who investigates the man who investigates me?
Maybe he's the kind does his own thinking;
Maybe tries to use his head.
Maybe he goes in for vodka drinking;
Maybe his corpuscles are red.
Believe me brother, Off with head.


Copyright 1947, by Harold Rome