 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
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? |
|
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? |
|
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? |
|
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? |
|
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 |
|
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... Have you discussed your concerns with Max? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Paco Rabanne Date: 26 Apr 05 - 09:28 AM Shambles, |
|
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 RogerHave you discussed your concerns with Max? |
|
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? |
|
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? |
|
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? |
|
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! |