 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 21 Mar 05 - 03:21 PM . . . and OPRAH! |
|
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 - 02:39 PM Anarchy. Chaos. Elections. . . . and TELEVISION. |
|
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: John MacKenzie Date: 21 Mar 05 - 01:05 PM Any other choices? G ¦¬] |
|
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 - 11:35 AM Just as well I'm not a clone then guest! Giok |
|
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: 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: 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: 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.
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: George Papavgeris Date: 20 Mar 05 - 01:39 PM See my previous post on this thread, Joe :-) |
|
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 - 09:07 AM 12 - I have given fair warning |
|
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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:33 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 - 07:19 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: 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 - 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: Peace Date: 20 Mar 05 - 12:53 AM This is gonna be fun. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:18 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: 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 - 03:20 PM Different Shit, Same Day. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: John MacKenzie Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:30 AM Tolerance cuts both ways Shambles; you should try it. Giok |