 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
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
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?
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?
-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.
-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! |