BS: Censorship on Mudcat

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