 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Jeri Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:32 PM Damn. Brucie, I had this image of you with a full head of wavy hair, just like William Shatner. I guess when one has illusions about others' hair, there's always hell toupe. Look at it as watching somebody make balloon animals out of logic. They're supposed to be giraffes and weiner dogs and stuff like that, but they all look like sausages with legs, which pretty much means they DO look like weiner dogs, but not giraffes. And presumably, you still have eyebrows and nose hair. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:21 PM If I had any friggin' hair left I'd pull it out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:14 PM It is entirely appropriate that we would combine threads that are essentially the same or going to the same place. Don't like it? Oh well..... Is it entirely appropriate that thread titles are for our volunteers to impose their judgement and change in any way without seeking the permission of the originator - especially when there is no question of the original title being offensive? And if you do not consider that this practice by our volunteers is entirely appropriate and in keeping with the spirit of our forum - is it entirely appropriate that the rest of us are told by these volunteers - at this stage in our forum's development - in effect to take it or leave it - as 'we' are going to do it anyway? Joe Offer - whilst claiming thread titles are his to change at will -has stated that the posts themselves are sacrosanct - but does not see that insisting on imposing his editing comments in these posts - without permission and where no editing has taken place in order not to refresh the thread - is not honouring this...What is next?
As a matter of fact, what is wrong with the brown comments, other than that they are a violation of your own arbitrary rules that you seek to impose upon the editorial staff of Mudcat? Isn't that it? - that you want to be king, and you've had a royal snit for threee years now because no one has seen fit to recognize your royalty? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 16 Mar 05 - 04:16 PM This thread reminds me of the worst case o' crabs I ever had. Took weeks and weeks to get rid of them. Like the herpes virus that rears its head at coldsore season, so too does this thread remind us that the days of our lives are numbered. Fungus in the jockstrap; warts on the petunia; tits on a bull. Pass that over here, will ya Dave? I promise not to inhale. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 16 Mar 05 - 03:40 PM Joe, lots of people are sick of Shambles'... ummm... repetition? (Alright Roger, I'll come quietly, yes I really meant whining...) ;-) On the other hand, I've PM'ed Roger to try to find out exactly what "evidence" he is referring to. The most obvious possibility (which I told him I assumed is not the one he means) is the thread he has referenced today. Which was going nowhere & consists of a number of people entirely disagreeing with Dewey. I wouldn't necessarily characterise it as "personal attacks", as compared with, say, the slanging match that went on between me & Martin G on the Holocaust thread (mea culpa, sinner & sinned against, to a degree!). It certainly isn't the "abusive & controlled" thread that I referred to above. If that's the thread he meant, then he's suffering tunnel vision again IMHO, but I await his clarification. The real point here is that Roger can quote anything he wants anytime he wants. But until he gets support from named & known members, he still has one inescapable question to answer - 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. Two different ways of asking the same thing, & a question which, so far, Roger has preferred to sidestep... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Ebbie Date: 16 Mar 05 - 03:19 PM 1907? Gads, the Shambles has been going on even longer than I thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Mar 05 - 03:08 PM Oy, Rædwulf, I think you've just opened the door to further tirades. Shambles has an entire library of quotations to misquote. I did make a mistake in judgment in 1907, and I said something that implied something negative about Shambles (but I did not say it in a brown editorial comment). He has copy-pasted it many times since then, in many different contexts. Since he has posted it so often, I think he may actually be quite proud of what I implied about him, but I certainly have come to regret what I said. I also once said that I was sick of Shambles' whining, and Shambles apparently considers that to be a personal attack from me. I don't think it was an attack - but it was a personal opinion and not Mudcat policy, so I didn't put it in a brown editorial remark. He's still whining, but I've learned to take it with a sense of humor and to more-or-less ignore him most of the time. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:31 PM If you can find threads where a moderator has both been abusive & has controlled the debate (by editing, deletion or closure) then you might well have a case for editorial abuse that needs answering. IF..........? *BIG SMILE* This evidence has been provided or linked to in this thread. There is no shortage of such evidence of our forum now being shaped by this - but if you are determined to hold and express a view that ignores all of this evidence - I am not sure why you would expect me or anyone else to take your opinion seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:16 PM Oh crap, Roger! Our mods are people, not saints. As Susan has already pointed out, the mods are also members & are entitled to post their opinions. If you think that's wrong, then perhaps the rest of us should start a campaign to get you installed as a mod? I mean, we could be sure you'd never censor anything, & since you'd then feel duty bound to shut up... ;-)Ditto to your comments about Joe. What on earth is the problem here? We all know who said what. Has it not occurred to you that perhaps Joe chose to make the remark in the 'editorial' fashion because he is commenting on Mudcat policy, rather than expressing his own personal opinion? Only if his personal opinion is in opposition to the official line does your complaint have any substance (& then only on a very technical, pedantic basis, cos we still know exactly who said what to whom...). Since, as far as I am aware, Joe's expressed opinion *is* the official line, you are, once more "tilting at windmills" Don Shambles! ;-) In fact, it is arguable that in your persistent sniping at Joe, you are in fact indulging in a campaign of "personal abuse", albeit politely phrased (but that makes it no less wearying, believe me!). On a more tightly moderated board you would have been warned or somehow circumscribed a long time ago. Be thankful for small mercies! If you can find threads where a moderator has both been abusive & has controlled the debate (by editing, deletion or closure) then you might well have a case for editorial abuse that needs answering. Exactly that accusation was what caused my resignation from my snail mail journal. I defended myself (with a clear conscience, I might add), the accusation was politely ("but nevertheless...") repeated, I resigned. Abuse of privilege is serious (NB: I don't regard combining two threads (vice your above quote) as stifling debate, merely streamlining it. Dewey can presumably continue to post to the open thread?). In which case, by all means squawk as loudly & as publicly as you can. If others agree with you, I am sure that your case would be taken up. If it isn't... I'm afraid your constant repetition is something that many of us seem to find tiresome. You jump at shadows, you can be a monomaniacal bore. Too much of the reaction I've seen here suggests that too many members would be inclined to agree. I say again, "But you raise it again & again. And again & again. And again & again & again & again... And you never seem to realise that it is only you banging the same tired old rhythm on the same worn out old drum. Me? I'd be wondering whether I was out of step with the rest of board & whether I ought to reconsider my opinions. But it never seems to occur to you..." Do you ever stop to wonder why you make so little progress with your arguments, Roger? Best wishes, Rædwulf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 16 Mar 05 - 01:20 PM In some of the personal abuse presented to me by our volunteers and their supporters - I will settle for 'polite' anything. But of course troll or trolling is just another device and yet another name to call someone whose views you may not like or share. If this thread was such a thing it would present no threat or concern and could safely be ignored. If it was honestly thought to be such a thing - then the very best example for our volunteers to set - would be to ignore it and not to post to the thread to send it right back to the top again. [As Joe Offer manages not to do - when he again expresses his personal view as an editorial comment when no editing has taken place and inserts it into someone else's post without their permission] Perhaps a good guideline for the future would be that if a thread is not judged to be worth refreshing - it is not worth contributing to? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Jeri Date: 16 Mar 05 - 10:10 AM Wikpedia entry on Internet Trolls - it's interesting, it's pretty deep, and it rings so many bells, you'll need ear plugs. This thread: another example of personal attack via 'polite' stalking - or another example of trolling? You judge....... .....or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 16 Mar 05 - 10:10 AM You would appear to welcome to express your opinion and seen in isolation your judgement may appear to have some substance. However a picture is beginning to build-up from many such instances - that possibly does not support your view? But it seems that a higher authority even that our volunteers may have been responsible for closing this thread? Subject: RE: BS: Anti-semitism From: WYSIWYG - PM Date: 15 Mar 05 - 04:54 PM Dewey, as you know I'm a praying woman. I'm praying that this thread will be closed, that you will find and join the site you dream of, and that God will speak to you there in such a way that you realize how really dumb you have been at Mudcat. ~Susan That thread was closed - so it looks as if (at least some of your) prayers were answered....By the Chief 'Goderator'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 16 Mar 05 - 09:11 AM Regarding Mick's post quoted below-- 1. In addition to being a supervised site volunteer workig within policies made clear by site administrators, Mick is a member here with as much right to have (and state) an opinion as anyone else. 2. If Mick HAD deleted or closed the thread in question, his action would have been reviewed by site administrators. His action could have been reversed if he had not interpreted or applied policy correctly. There ya have it. Another tempest in a teapot, debunked. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:58 AM Anti-semitism The above thread was closed.
By the way, the Kurd Thread was also closed. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:09 AM Another example of objective 'moderation' from our volumteers - or another example of bullying? You judge........... Subject: RE: BS: Anti-semitism From: Big Mick - PM Date: 15 Mar 05 - 11:10 AM Dewey .... your attempts to alibi your original contentions won't fly. It is entirely appropriate that we would combine threads that are essentially the same or going to the same place. Don't like it? Oh well..... If I had caught all this earlier, I would have deleted it. Bill D doesn't need defending. His goodness shines through. As a Christian, I wish more Christians were like him. Bill might challenge your arguments, but he doesn't attack you. He is the classic example of being tolerant of others views. Would that more of my Christian brothers and sisters were like that. Oh yeah ..... goodbye. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 09 Mar 05 - 06:22 AM Raedwulf says Are you sure about that, Roger? Are you really really sure? Because you ram your views far more often, far more persistently & far more vehemently down everyone's throats than any of the clones ever do. I am sure that I can't 'ram' or impose - nor have I any wish to. I can only express my view, present the facts and hope to shape our forum in the traditional way – by my contributions to a discussion forum - which you and other posters, can easily choose to ignore. Our unknown and numberless volunteers are NOW able to shape our forum by what they choose to delete by the imposition of their judgement - it is not quite so easy for the rest of us to ignore this. Especially if your invited contribution is permanently lost when an entire thread is deleted. Not because there was anything wrong with it – but because our volunteers could not be bothered to take the time, to deal only with what they considered the offending post. In the context of an internet board (which seems to escape Roger all too frequently) , moderating means keeping the discussion within "reasonable" bounds. Yes, "reasonable" is subjective & dependent on the moderators. But it is normally taken to mean pruning anything overtly offensive. So no spam (which everyone except the spammers seem to find offensive), no anonymous slanging matches (MC is a bit weak on stopping this, IMHO), public personal vitriol is discouraged (which MC allows a reasonable amount of latitude on, but does sometimes close down), that kind of thing. I do try and produce evidence to support my view of the reality of all this imposed censorship. See my posting in this thread of -06 Feb 05 - 04:13 PM – for evidence. This shows that our volunteers – from their privileged and responsible position- set the poor example of indulging in abusive personal attacks, incite other to do the same and seem to think this is amusing. Is this the example that moderators should be setting? The nature of this part of a website - that is open for and has historically been shaped by the contributions of the public – does not ever escape me. I think there is evidence that it does perhaps escape some of our volunteers who are very confused about what this part of Max's website is in reality or what their imposed editing action is really try to acheive. This confusion over purpose - is very evident from the nature of the imposed editing action. The idea that our forum is (MAINLY or ONLY) a site for research – is probably the biggest misconception. The attempt to intentionally turn our public discussion forum into this by the imposition of this view – when its strucure will allow much more - is probably the single biggest mistake. It is probably not very honest to support the editing actions of this practice either for this attempt is not moderation – it is something else. I found this definition : person using strength or power to coerce others by fear – persecute or oppress by force or threats. This was not the definition of the methods or intention of a moderator – but those of a bully. The facts are all here – you judge……But these facts will demonstrate that if you should post and assume to judge our volunteer judges (in any way other than being totally uncritical)- you should probably be prepared for them to mount abusive personal attacks, incite others to do this and encourage the idea that this practice is humourous - when undertaken against certain (safe) targets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:37 AM The internet has an entirely different meaning for the word-- it's not the same concept at all. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Pauline L Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:35 AM Great truths endure. Even though Aristotle didn't write about the Internet, if what he wrote was good, it can be applied to the Internet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:14 AM "Yep! But brucie were givin' 'em breedin' room... Hence the resounding :p" Of couse, whether or not I give a rat's ass is another issue. LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 08 Mar 05 - 09:05 AM The quotes may be from a mod site, but Aristotle was not writing about the internet! ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: jeffp Date: 08 Mar 05 - 08:44 AM Ah, yes. Aristotle was a very prolific writer on internet issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 08 Mar 05 - 02:52 AM "The virtue of justice consists in moderation, as regulated by wisdom." Aristotle The quotes are from this site called Everything In Moderation. Which is a site about the moderation of internet website etc. http://www.everythinginmoderation.org/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 05 - 09:59 PM Coulda been worse. Least I was only castigated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:56 PM Eeeeeeew........... ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:55 PM Yep! But brucie were givin' 'em breedin' room... Hence the resounding :p ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:44 PM That's OK. It's an honored tradition here to feed the trolls just enough to keep them alive. As long as you don't place them internally, make them spawn, and try to auto-nourish the results on placenta (which is something both men and women can actually do), it's OK. Right? :~) ~S~ |
|
Subject: Oi! Brucie, you Rodney!! From: Raedwulf Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:37 PM *Bzzzzt* Wrong, Mr Murdoch! I am actually sorry to tell you that you've been a pillock, but in this thread, you have been. Generally, you're a good & intelligent guy, but you don't play with trolls (been there, done that) by making yourself look a complete twit & offering them a cheap score. Which is exactly what you did here. I like you well enough to take the trouble to tell you so. Make me do it again, & I'll call you something worse! ;-) Regards, Rædwulf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Georgiansilver Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:31 PM Ashby de la Zouche by the sea?.....How far from the sea can you get? Best wishes, Mike. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:28 PM In the context of an internet board (which seems to escape Roger all too frequently) , moderating means keeping the discussion within "reasonable" bounds. Yes, "reasonable" is subjective & dependent on the moderators. But it is normally taken to mean pruning anything overtly offensive. So no spam (which everyone except the spammers seem to find offensive), no anonymous slanging matches (MC is a bit weak on stopping this, IMHO), public personal vitriol is discouraged (which MC allows a reasonable amount of latitude on, but does sometimes close down), that kind of thing. It does not normally mean allowing absolutely anything, or trying to be overly sensitive. We're all adults here (more or less), & if you're not prepared for a bit of "give & take", be careful of what you say & how you express yourself. If you're flamed you quite probably asked for it (even if you didn't think so), so don't expect the mods to defend you. Email communication is often prone to misunderstandings. Either accept that, or find another another way of explaining what you were trying to say. I've had to do both before, & I'm not always exactly conciliatory in my expressiveness, shall we say! Moderation comes from all sides, & if you're not, you've no grounds for complaint. (Note: Roger, IMHO you are not moderate in your constant sniping about moderation, as you might have gathered! ;-) ) I've no complaints about the way that Mudcat is moderated, except in the latitude allowed to anonymous Guests below the BS "salt" (which is where I usually dwell), & I've been both sinner & sinned against. R |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Georgiansilver Date: 07 Mar 05 - 04:19 PM Come on...what is moderation?.......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Georgiansilver Date: 07 Mar 05 - 03:52 PM What is moderation? Good thought but what is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 07 Mar 05 - 03:35 PM Those literary quotes of Sham's are all wrong-- they are not talking about editorial moseration, but about self-control. As in, "everything in moderation." ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 05 - 03:27 PM "The baiting of brucie (which he was stupid enough (sorry brucie, but it's true!) to play up to) is a not untypical abuse of Guest privilege, IMHO." You ain't sorry. But that's OK. You sign your name, and that's good enough for me, Raedwulf. I always did like you. Bruce M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 07 Mar 05 - 03:21 PM Well as I would never wish to - or ever feel qualified to impose my judgement (sincere or otherwise) upon anyone else Are you sure about that, Roger? Are you really really sure? Because you ram your views far more often, far more persistently & far more vehemently down everyone's throats than any of the clones ever do. No, Max would never be daft enough to offer you the chance to moderate Mudcat. Your over-expressed, rigidly monomaniac views have shown you are not competent to be a moderator (whatever & whoever you want to quote to prove that your view is the right one). I have fulfilled such a function in a number of different fashions on the Net & off of it. I've occasionally been criticised for it, & resigned in one instance because I felt that such criticism was entirely unjustified. I did my best, as I believe Joe does, to provide a balance between opposing views, and I was editing a snail-mail journal, which is a lot more difficult, so I feel I'm a little qualified, at least, to offer some kind of informed opinion. Your philosophy would cause far more damage. I don't believe you'd over prune. Instead (to continue the gardening analogy), you'd allow Mudcat to be strangled by the weeds. Joe is willing to pull a few up by the roots, but you'd slowly lose the good growth as it fell away, despairing of space to flower. Personally, as I've said before, I don't believe Mudcat is moderated as well as it could be. I think Joe & the Clones are too lenient. The baiting of brucie (which he was stupid enough (sorry brucie, but it's true!) to play up to) is a not untypical abuse of Guest privilege, IMHO. But I express my opinion occasionally, when the moment seems appropriate. And maybe Joe listens & thinks the arguments aren't quite convincing enough. And maybe he & Max think there isn't so much of a problem as to need the work & hassle that the solution would take. But you raise it again & again. And again & again. And again & again & again & again... And you never seem to realise that it is only you banging the same tired old rhythm on the same worn out old drum. Me? I'd be wondering whether I was out of step with the rest of board & whether I ought to reconsider my opinions. But it never seems to occur to you... Regards, Rædwulf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 02 Mar 05 - 01:59 AM "Exactness and neatness in moderation is a virtue, but carried to extremes narrows the mind." Francois de Salignac Fenelon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Charlie from Ashby de la Zouch (by the sea) Date: 01 Mar 05 - 10:43 AM Sounds like a good excuse for a bit of Jake Thakeray: I love a good bum on a woman, it makes my day. To me it is palpable proof of God's existence, a posteriori. Also I love breasts and arms and ankles, elbows, knees; It's the tongue, the tongue, the tongue on a woman that spoils the job for me. Please understand I respect and admire the frailer sex And I honour them every bit as much as the next misogynist. But give some women the ghost of a chance to talk and thereupon They go on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on. I fell in love with a woman with wonderful thighs and hips And a sensational belly. I just never noticed her lips were always moving. Only when we got to the altar and she had to say "I do" And she folded her arms and gathered herself and took in a breath and I knew She could have gone on again, on again, on again till the entire Congregation passed out and the vicar passed on and the choirboys passed through puberty. At the reception I gloomily noted her family's jubilant mood, Their maniacal laughter and their ghastly gratitude. She talks to me when I go for a shave or a sleep or a swim. She talks to me on a Sunday when I go singing hymns and drinking heavily. When I go mending my chimney pot she's down there in the street, And at ninety-five on my motorbike she's on the pillion seat Wittering on again, on again, on and again and again. When I'm eating or drinking or reading or thinking or when I'm saying my rosary. She will never stop talking to me; she is one of those women who Will never use three or four words when a couple of thousand will easily do! She also talks without stopping to me in our bed of a night; Throughout the sweetest of our intimate delights she never gives over. Not even stopping while we go hammer and tongs towards the peak - Except maybe for a sigh and a groan and one perfunctory shriek. Then she goes on again, on again, on again on and I must Assume that she has never noticed that she's just been interrupted. Totally unruffled she is, and as far as I can see I might just as well have been posting a letter or stirring up the tea! She will not take a hint, not once she's made a start. I can yawn or belch or bleed or faint or fart - she'll not drop a syllable. I could stand in front of her grimly sharpening up an axe, I could sprinkle her with paraffin, and ask her for a match - She'd just go on again, on again, on again even more. The hind leg of a donkey is peanuts for her, she can bore the balls off a buffalo. "Mother of God," I cried one day, "Oh, let your kingdom come "And in the meantime, Mother, could you strike this bugger dumb?" Well, believe it or not, she appeared to me then and there: The Blessed Virgin herself, in answer to my prayer, despite the vulgarity, Shimmering softly, dressed in blue and holding up a hand. I cocked a pious ear as the Mother of God began. Well she went on again, on again, on again, on, and I Will have to state how very much I sympathise with the rest of the family. Give some women the ghost of a chance to talk and thereupon They go on again, on again, on again, on again, And again, and again, and again, and again They will go on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on again, on. Now... take away the tits, and add a grey beard... and what image does that bring to mind????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 01 Mar 05 - 10:16 AM "To go beyond the bounds of moderation is to outrage humanity." Blaise Pascal |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 01 Mar 05 - 08:53 AM your'e all nuts! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 28 Feb 05 - 08:25 PM Everything in moderation Especially moderation........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Mr (almost perfect) Red Date: 28 Feb 05 - 09:16 AM How about moderating purfecshun? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Feb 05 - 08:44 AM Perfect moderation is a silly idea. People who are moderate do not try to be perfect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 28 Feb 05 - 05:00 AM He used to masturbate a lot, Sham, didn't he? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 28 Feb 05 - 01:47 AM "Complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation." Saint Augustine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Feb 05 - 10:58 PM I wonder what's on the third tier? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 27 Feb 05 - 12:19 AM That to Clinton, guest, other guest and other guest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 27 Feb 05 - 12:13 AM Whatever you say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Feb 05 - 12:06 AM And there you have it. Very good, Spaw. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:25 PM A dipshit is the offspring of a jerkwad and a fucknuts. It's in the fourth tier of profane vocabulary. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 26 Feb 05 - 09:40 PM Oh dear... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Feb 05 - 09:36 PM Bruce, you really shouldn't go around calling nameless people dipshits. I've never thought of asking this before- What IS a "dipshit"? The world wants to know. -Joe Offer- |