 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 19 Mar 05 - 05:17 AM Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Joe Offer - PM Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think. I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones. -Joe Offer-[Not in brown] The chief of the Mudcat Editorial Staff and the one in charge of our anonymous volunteers actually had no idea if this post had been deleted or not - but decided to present the defence for this imposed action anyway - just in case. But of course these type of routine deletions - because (some) people 'think of them as obnoxious' - are not a BIG DEAL and only considered worth the bother of our lesser anonymous volunteers to delete as a matter of routine in order to protect us. Whatever one's personal taste in the posts you send or the ones you open and read - I tend to think that anonymous volunteer posters imposing their personal judgement on any of the contributions invited from the public - by Max the site's owner - should always be considered a BIG DEAL. Perhaps, if or when the intention of the post in question - is clearly NOT offensive and there is no need to rush to protect us - the originator could be contacted - before any judgement is imposed, without their knowledge and possibly against their wishes? This would show the appropriate respect to all the contributions invited by the site's owner for many years and be more in keeping with the tolerant spirit of our forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 AM Well, Ted, I have to admit it - your #200 message was deleted - but there were two botched messages deleted before yours, so you were actually #202....or so. -Joe Offer- Here's Ted's (deleted) message: From: flamenco ted - PM Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:59 AM 200!! Terry, eat my shorts yet again! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 18 Mar 05 - 09:13 PM "Well apart from all that - what else have the Roman's done for us?" THIS will help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 18 Mar 05 - 08:35 PM Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bert Date: 06 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it. -Joe Offer- [in brown] -------------------------------------------------------------------- It would appear that it far from covers it. Posts claiming the 100th etc post in a thread - must be added to the seemingly endless and increasing list of things that must be deleted. Perfectly logical Jim - just look at the damage to the whole fabric of the forum that will be done if these terrible and subversive contributions are allowed by our volunteers to remain....... Well apart from all that - what else have the Roman's done for us? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 18 Mar 05 - 06:51 PM Congratulations, Roger. That is the single worst piece of BS I've seen on this board. I asked you that question in private two days ago. You can manage to make public answers to other later responses to your comments, but (somehow) you can't answer the public question I asked twice (you're still weaselling, Roger), you can't even offer me a private acknowledgement (not even an "I don't think it's worth answering") of my PM. And when I ask the same question publicly, you whine & cry. Why the f*** should anyone respect your 'privacy', when you don't have the 'honour', or the basic common courtesy, to offer even the slightest answer, eh? Your effort at playing 'wronged victim' is pathetic. You could have answered me, given me the chance to look at whatever thread it was that particularly annoying you (& that I would have supported you were you right was as implicit as the fact that I would have criticised you if I thought you were wrong). You didn't. Instead you chose to ignore the PM, yet 'answer' other posts that presumably serve your biased purpose better. Face it, Roger, nobody but you & the occasional Guest thinks that Mudcat is such a terrible place. You achieve nothing & Mudcat is no 'freer' for your bleating. Until the rules change, I'm afraid you are a particularly worthless whiner. Even Guests are right occasionally. But you, off the subject of PELs... Bye, bye, Roger... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 18 Mar 05 - 04:27 PM Goodnight, Mary Ellen. Goodnight, Bobbi Jo. Goodnight, Goodnight, Billy Bob Goodnight, Susie Des Moines Goodnight, Al--who the f### is Susie Des Moines? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:35 PM Perhaps some peoples habit of intruding into posts they have not made any other contribution to, just to make the 100th/200th/300th post, is regarded as not contributing anything of value to the thread, and a waste of bandwidth. If that is the case then deleting a post that contributes nothing to the sum of Mudcat Knowledge is an act of mercy. It is only done as Joe said above the line, or in the case of BS, where the thread is a serious one. That is something that will only be learned by reading the post in question, if you can't be bothered to do that then your post deserves to be deleted. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 18 Mar 05 - 02:41 PM Perhaps one of the reasons I did not respond to these PMs is because what is said in these is expected to be personal, to remain private and not be publicly splashed across the forum and there are certain people I felt that could not trust to honour this convention...If so -it looks as if I was right...... BTW someone certainly did delete Flamenco Ted's 200th post. It was there when I first looked and then it was gone............Perhaps the reasons for this imposed judgement upon it, who it was that imposed it and the terrible harm that leaving it in place would have done - will be explained to us in time? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 18 Mar 05 - 01:49 PM You see Roger? Even Giok's sick of you (mind you, he's a miserable Socts ***)... ;-) More seriously, you have sidestepped this question twice now. At the third time of asking, Do you ever stop to wonder why you make so little progress with your arguments, & does it ever occur to you to wonder whether you are out of step with the rest of the board & whether you ought to reconsider your opinions? Three strikes & yer out, 'ccording to ol' "Blow-job" Clinton... And Roger, you never responded to my PM. You are avoiding & ignoring my questions. What does that say about you, that would continually question? Are you afraid of giving answers? Or is it only those answers that make you seem a fool that you avoid? For the benefit of everyone else, Hello Roger, Which thread? "Censorship" has grown & I don't have time to wade through it all over again. More than one person has suggested that the Anti-semitism thread was closed because it got too personal, so I'm assuming at this point you're displaying your too well proven 'aversion' & that it's not that one. PM me the thread link & I'll take a look. Be warned though, I'll post my response to you publicly, especially if I think you're talking crap! Best, R Roger won't tell me which thread he thought was particularly censored, same as he won't answer my question. Go figure... R |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Giok Date: 18 Mar 05 - 12:56 PM I am totally pissed off with the whining of 'Shambles', and I'm tempted to tell him where to go, and what to do when he gets there, but that would put me back in the ranks of those who respond to flamers and trolls, and I'm 'Cold Turkey' on that one. Shambles the only thing I can say to you that is polite is "Get a life". You obviously aren't going to get your own way, and you are sulking because someone deleted your pearls of wisdom. Just give it a rest, and if you are that upset, why don't you give the benefit of your erudition and angst to another site, where they will no doubt get as fed up with you as I am. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,brucie Date: 18 Mar 05 - 12:51 PM Y'all take a good look at the post above this one. THAT is censorship. Now, please take two pills and write back in a year. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 18 Mar 05 - 12:50 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,brucie Date: 18 Mar 05 - 12:28 PM I find it hard to believe that this thread is still going. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Joe Offer Date: 18 Mar 05 - 12:23 PM Hey, Ted - I said the counting messages were a no-no on music threads and serious discussions. Most of us stopped taking the Shambles campaigns seriously a long, long time ago. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Flamenco ted Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:48 AM Hang about Joe! If you re read post number 11 and 12 on this very thread, you will see that YOU tried to bag the 100th posts yourself!!! As for the music threads, I see leadfingers trophies are still all over the place. Is it a banjo thing? Have to go TTFN |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Joe Offer Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think. I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Flamenco ted Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:19 AM Good afternoon Joe, I can't even log in at the moment, but I have DEFINITELY had a few 100th posts deleted today!! How much is Leadfingers paying you? Anyhow, no matter, I have to toddle off to the North York Moors for the weekend. Carry on deleting! Flamenco, the true path! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Joe Offer Date: 18 Mar 05 - 10:57 AM Ted, I don't know how to tell you this, but I think Shambles got the 200th post, fair and square. I don't believe there's been a single message deleted or moved from this thread. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 18 Mar 05 - 09:37 AM As sombody said......... Well then I'd say you're screwed because that is how these things go! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Paco Rabanne Date: 18 Mar 05 - 09:29 AM I'll tell why my 200th post was deleted, I'll bet Leadfingers complained because he missed it! Typical bamjo player, too slow to catch a cold! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 18 Mar 05 - 09:12 AM I've just had my 200th post censored! I didn't. Or not yet anyway. Your one must have been judged as offensive subversive and likely to bring the whole edifice down. There will no doubt be some editorial comment (in brown writing) to explain why your post was deleted.......? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Paco Rabanne Date: 18 Mar 05 - 09:01 AM I've just had my 200th post censored! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 18 Mar 05 - 08:51 AM Pat "I do not support our forum being shaped by the imposed personal judgements of a few and and deltions and thread closures being based on this." Well then I'd say you're screwed because that is how these things go! I think this is one of the saddest and most negative contributions that I have ever read on this forum. It reminds me far too much of the justifications that Bush and Blair are currently giving us – as to why our precious freedoms must be curtailed for the common good and why we must as do as they tell us...For if there are no remaining freedoms – there can be no common good. Pat, you may be prepared to articulate and accept that there is some sort of inevitable decline into the negative aspects of human nature and that well-intended and very successful attempts to encourage and tolerate the public's freedom of expression – like Max's public discussion forum – are doomed into becoming the private playground of a judgmental and favoured few. I - and I suspect many other posters do not accept this as inevitable. Things like this fine forum - only go this negative way – if some people wish it to – it suits a few others and the rest do nothing to prevent it. And if you are prepared to let the positive aspects slide and encourage the negative ones. The contributions of the members you so heartily endorse become nothing but forum killers as the trolls and flamers run amok unchecked. Soon there will be fewer and fewer good memebers until eventually nothing is left but the worst and then, and only then, they too will leave. In their wake they will leave nothing of value. In truth when those you would judge as 'good members' - currently set and are encouraged to set the example of acting the same and responding in kind to the flamers and trolls – it is difficult to tell them apart……….But this is a public discussion forum. It is not a place for one poster to be encouraged to judge the worth of another poster's entire personality, to call them names and question their possible motives – from only what they may post. It is what is said in the post that matters - and the only choice open to a poster is to reply or not. You can't see that though can you? You refuse to accept that moderation and censorship becomes needed when forums reach certain levels. You seem unable to accept the reality of a forum that still remains open to all of the public. Perhaps you should stay in those that are not? Or start one of your own where you could choose and judge your fellow posters? I can accept that some form of moderation may at some point be required but not that this is ever inevitable or when contributions reach a certain level. If this is the case – the reward for the success of Max's public discussion forum – would appear to be that it must die or become something else………….. I fail to see why you refuse to understand that the limited moderation here is no big deal. We ought to be grateful that this is all there is. But with growth, more will probably become mandatory. Once again, as you have this grand idea of an uncensored forum, please go out and start one. Go for it. Let us know how it goes for you. But if or when some form of moderation is ever required – I expect you may agree that the requirement is that this moderation it is always open, fair, and has a clear object. That many folk still don't think that any moderation at all is taking place and that it is currently being undertaken and imposed by anonymous fellow posters – rather knocks the first one on the head. If it were a matter for me to decide – if or when I thought that imposed censorship was needed on this public discussion forum and that the encouragement of setting a good example and other measures could not deal with any problems – firstly I would consider it to be a BIG DEAL. I would ensure and constantly review that whatever was introduced was open, fair and had a clear object. If or when that is the case on our forum – I will support this……My earler posts in this thread will show who is being most affected by all of this current imposed censorship. I think the saddest part of your post was how quickly you have given-up on the special place that his forum has always been thought to be. In order - it would appear to support a place that would be as ordinary and intolerant as every other site on the internet. If this part of Max's website - that he set aside for the public's contributions had ever been ordinary - many contrubutors would not have stayed for so long and tried to ensure that it never became ordinary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: MudGuard Date: 18 Mar 05 - 07:33 AM Ups, "censored" seems to have a second meaning of which I was not aware ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Mar 05 - 11:15 PM Joe, here in our area, they say, "Has your dog been tutored yet?" It doesn't ever get said about female dogs tho. :~) ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Mar 05 - 10:57 PM The first cut is the deepest! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 17 Mar 05 - 10:47 PM The most unkindest cut of all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Mar 05 - 10:09 PM Yeah, hey, my cat Van Gogh* got censored, too. Now he's an "it" - but he is much more docile. Poor Catspaw. -Joe Offer- *usually known as "Gooey" or "Go-Go." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Mar 05 - 08:50 PM Feel free to call me Pat, Shatner, and I will call you Jackass. And no, Spaw has never been censored. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 17 Mar 05 - 07:05 PM Different Day, Same Shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,William Shatner Date: 17 Mar 05 - 05:40 PM I had a heart to heart talk with him, and he's been much steadier since. Sometimes it just takes a few kind yet firm words from a more experienced hand to get a person on the right track and turn things around. I'm proud of what Pat...may I call you "Pat"?...has achieved in the last year. He's basically a very fine man with a warm and caring heart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 17 Mar 05 - 05:19 PM Same Shit, Different Day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: MudGuard Date: 17 Mar 05 - 05:09 PM Did anyone notice what a wise sage Catspaw has become? What happened to the old Catspaw that we knew and loved? The old Catspaw got - of course - censored ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Mar 05 - 04:44 PM It can only happen when one takes a break from Mudcat for awhile. (Apparently, a longer while than I've experienced.) :~) ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Mar 05 - 04:17 PM Did anyone notice what a wise sage Catspaw has become? What happened to the old Catspaw that we knew and loved? [grin] -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:36 PM PS, that post of mine was directed to Shambles in support of catspaw's point. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:34 PM Once again, as you have this grand idea of an uncensored forum, please go out and start one. Go for it. Let us know how it goes for you. There are two people I know of who DID "leave" here and start another forum. Guess what. They moderated. More than here. Because it was clear that conversation was killed off here too often without some structure. They had membership criteria, required registration, and moderation. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Sorcha Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:30 PM Shambles, you are behaving like a juvenile throwing a temper tantrum. If you don't like it, why won't you just leave? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:22 PM "I do not support our forum being shaped by the imposed personal judgements of a few and and deltions and thread closures being based on this." Well then I'd say you're screwed because that is how these things go! The contributions of the members you so heartily endorse become nothing but forum killers as the trolls and flamers run amok unchecked. Soon there will be fewer and fewer good memebers until eventually nothing is left but the worst and then, and only then, they too will leave. In their wake they will leave nothing of value. You can't see that though can you? You refuse to accept that moderation and censorship becomes needed when forums reach certain levels. Mudcat maintains a tiny amount by all comparison and you can't even accept that! I can direct you to some very good forums where conversations move along quite freely and yet are very heavily censored. You'd be apoplectic! And one other thing......most all of your posts on this thread would have been deleted. MAtter of fact, this entire thread would have been zapped as soon as it appeared. And yet the folks in those forums all seem to have a good time talking about the topics that interest them and there are no trolls or flamers. Mods let them know when they're stretching the envelope and things fall back in line. Personally I think that level of moderation and censorship is too much, but I can also see it works. I fail to see why you refuse to understand that the limited moderation here is no big deal. We ought to be grateful that this is all there is. But with growth, more will probably become mandatory. Once again, as you have this grand idea of an uncensored forum, please go out and start one. Go for it. Let us know how it goes for you. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 17 Mar 05 - 02:49 PM "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill because they ticked me off." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff Date: 17 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM I have been censored on Mudcat and probably Joe Offer did me a favor. Peter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 17 Mar 05 - 02:26 PM Yes, the reality is Mudcat is moving toward a higher level of moderation and not even Joe wants to say so. Funny thing though Sham, I think Joe longs for those older days and hates the idea of doing more even more than you do. He doesn't want to do more and I think he hopes every additional thing will be the last. This is what you think Joe thinks. It is not what he says and until he does say this - it is probably better if we just judge him by his actions - and what he does say. I have not said this and I certainly have no wish to return to some mythical golden period. I support the forum continuing to natuarally evolve by its invited contributions from the public. I do not support our forum being shaped by the imposed personal judgements of a few and and deltions and thread closures being based on this. But I also do not wish to see the same old excuses wheeled-out to justify the bad example now being set by our volunteers - in the use of abusive language, personal judgements, and generally responding in kind - by those few who assume that their inabilty to act responsibily and ignore obvious provocation - is shared by other posters. It is not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Mar 05 - 09:32 AM "All I am trying to do is to demonstrate that what is defended in the 'spin' is not what is now happening in reality. The reality of this should be very clear from the evidence and links in this thread. You judge from reading this evidence - where we are now and where we are going............." Yes, the reality is Mudcat is moving toward a higher level of moderation and not even Joe wants to say so. For a very long time we were able to enjoy the freedom that a small community can provide. Only Garg was much of a problem and even then we "knew the devil" so he was a sort of in-house troll that required very little attention. As the place grew we acquired the things that come with a larger community and that also meant that to keep pure chaos and anarchy from reigning supreme, certain steps had, repeat had, to be taken. And whether you or I or Max or Joe or Jeff like it, additional things will more than likely need to be implemented as growth continues. Sorry , but you can't go home again. Funny thing though Sham, I think Joe longs for those older days and hates the idea of doing more even more than you do. He doesn't want to do more and I think he hopes every additional thing will be the last. But it just don't work that way. More changes will happen. Period. You aren't going to like them and neither will Max or Jeff or Joe of me, but happen they will out of necessity. The difference here is that you think you CAN go home again and the rest of us sorrowfully know you can't. You continue to harp on these issues ad nauseum and unless you are much less intelligent that I figure you to be, I have to question the reason you do so. What is the point? Face the simple truth......You are not going to change things back to where they were and you are not going to stop the growth of this place which will make even more structure necessary. You will however sacrifice any credibility you have left. Your continual carping in the face of all reality does not make you a courageous martyr or whatever, it just makes you look like an ass. "The ability of our volunteers to read the future - to delete and close threads BEFORE they contain anything that may cause offence - is not logical Jim. As every thread has the potential to turn 'into another slugfest' perhaps all threads should be routinely deleted or closed by our all-seeing volunteers - before they can and perhaps the rest of us will just have to 'learn to live with it. For that is the logical conclusion of such imposed judgement." I belong to a large auto racing forum that works exactly that way and yet it is freindly with excellent discussions, many of them quite heated. But the rules are strict and the mods enforce them tightly with no recall. Even with all that is imposed there, the place is still fun and it works. No, it's not got much freedom but civil discussions are the norm and even in our "fun forum" over there, the rules are still in effect. Life there is much easier. Freedom requires personal resopnsibility and very few here will take it and it makes an A number One breeding ground for trolls and flamers. Try to adjust and if you can't at least try and shut up. You are accomplishing nothing on any sort of positive note with this continual whining. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Mar 05 - 08:45 AM God give me the serenity to accept things which cannot be changed; Give me courage to change things which must be changed; And the wisdom to distinguish one from the other. - Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr Union Theological Seminary NYC, 1932 ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:27 AM Ah yes - logic. Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed! From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 26 Jan 05 - 07:17 PM Sorry, Peter. We routinely close or delete all threads that look like they're going to be an attack on an individual. Yours got deleted before it turned into another slugfest. There was no way it was going to turn out to be a constructive discussion. As for any thread about gargoyle or Martin Gibson, we don't even think twice. We delete it. Learn to live with it. -Joe Offer- The ability of our volunteers to read the future - to delete and close threads BEFORE they contain anything that may cause offence - is not logical Jim. As every thread has the potential to turn 'into another slugfest' perhaps all threads should be routinely deleted or closed by our all-seeing volunteers - before they can and perhaps the rest of us will just have to 'learn to live with it. For that is the logical conclusion of such imposed judgement. Being forced to live with these ultimatums from our volunteers may be life - but not as we have come to know it on our forum..... All I am trying to do is to demonstrate that what is defended in the 'spin' is not what is now happening in reality. The reality of this should be very clear from the evidence and links in this thread. You judge from reading this evidence - where we are now and where we are going............. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Azizi Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:55 PM But Captain, your statement "Accept the fact that things are as they are, and get on with your life " doesn't take into consideration the drive we humans have to correct and enhance what is.. I'm not concerned about challenging "what is" from the inside. It's just that it doesn't appear to me that Shambles has made his case that wrong has occurred. Maybe Spock could make Shambles see reason about this. IMO, Captain Kirk failed in his attempt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,William Shatner Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:43 PM Leonard is otherwise engaged at the moment. I'll try to handle this. Shambles, you must realize that every world has its imperfections. No society or microcosm of society will ever meet one's every hope and requirement perfectly. Grow up, sir. Accept the fact that things are as they are, and get on with your life. Either that or buy the damned forum out, and run it as you see fit. - William Shatner |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Azizi Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:36 PM Forget Captain Kirk. Where is Spock when we need him?! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Sorcha Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:04 PM Oh fer gawd's sake. Just shut up. First and LAST time I'll post to this one. Good grief Charlie Brown. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:39 PM LOL Good one, Jeri. Yeah. I'm at the age where I got hair damn near every place I don't want it and none of the places I do. I'll be buying black satin pillow cases so's I can find it all in the morning. Thanks for the laugh there gal. |