BS: Censorship on Mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:43 PM

Good question, Amos.

But does Ariel Sharon go around calling people 'nobodys', 'dipshits Period', Periodic dipshits, and then refusing to apologise for attempting to stifle the right of some-one else on this Forum to speak freely?

Mmmmmmm, I see your point.

There you are, brucie.
Ariel and Adolph, all in one!

Do you have a dog?
(I don't want to know the answer to that, really)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:33 PM

Then why did he invade their country?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:30 PM

Which traits?
Linking the swastika to here, for 1.

Don't think Ariel would have done that

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Niggly
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:06 PM

Which Hitlerian traits did you have in mind, Guest?

I've heard that Hitler loved dogs, for instance. He was also highly patriotic, and he nursed a deep sense of grievance for past historical wrongs against his people, as he saw them. He thought his people were the most special people in the world, and deserved a special role.

Aren't those all traits of Ariel Sharon? (although I'm not sure about the dogs part...)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:05 PM

Brucie... grow the f#ck up would ya...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:40 PM

Well Rambles I don't doubt your insincerity.

Your logic would demand Max to be so perverse that he actually appoints people to destroy his own dreams. (something I do not believe he is)

Try adding words like "appointed by Max" when referring to Joe or the clones and you would see how nonsensical you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,another guest
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:29 PM

Seriously though, brucie, Guest has a point.

You might want to go to an anger management course. You seem to revert to insult, when you seem to have no answer.

That is very bad.

Especially for a school teacher

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:15 PM

Heavens above brucie!!

Do you not see yourself as sharing the same traits as Hitler?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:14 PM

PS Dipshit: I got no more time for you today.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:12 PM

"Isn't that the kind of thinking that led to the extermination camps, in the first place?"

You are STILL a dipshit. And a stupid one at that. Go shag yerself.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:11 PM

"Well I'm me, of course, and I respect the right of Clinton to argue with me, if he so wishes."

You ain't you. You're a dipshit. Period. And a periodic dipshit at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:11 PM

Good man brucie!

Isn't that the kind of thinking that led to the extermination camps, in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:09 PM

You ain't no one. You are a nameless dipshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:09 PM

Who am I?
Well I'm me, of course, and I respect the right of Clinton to argue with me, if he so wishes.

Do you not?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:06 PM

"Let's hear another apology from brucie!!"

Here's yer apology GUEST: Go take a flying fuck to yerself, dipshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:05 PM

TS... go outside... pay a screen-door on a submarine a nickel to trade places with you... get yourself a better life than the one you currently have...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:05 PM

"That would be another kind of censorship, brucie. If there's going to be free speech, Clinton can argue with whoever the hell he likes..., including you."

Who the hell are YOU?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:58 PM

Roger - I would never dispute your sincerity, but I would always rather have Joe moderating events than you. Joe is pushed in when people may be stepping on toes. You step on toes when no-one ever pushed you in. Go figure....

Well as I would never wish to - or ever feel qualified to impose my judgement (sincere or otherwise) upon anyone else - and Joe is very likely to un-volunteer - and none of us have a say in it anyway - there is not much to figure - but it is a view and at least a contibution to a debate on a public discussion forum. As to describing what is now going on - on our forum, as moderation......

Moderator: arbitrator, mediator; Prespyterian minister presiding over any ecclesiastical body.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:56 PM

Let's hear another apology from brucie!!

C'mon brucie...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:54 PM

That would be another kind of censorship, brucie. If there's going to be free speech, Clinton can argue with whoever the hell he likes..., including you.

And you should accept that

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:12 PM

Clinton,

Ya want to argue do so. But not with me, OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 06:04 PM

"That was a breach of Federal law in the USA."
The internet is a global medium that doesn't (At least it shouldn't) give a flying f#ck for "USA Federal Law"... I do plenty of things that might be considered 'illegal' in the USA or in other countries... I do things that some people might call immoral too... wanna ask me how much I care?

" The stuff that gets 'pruned' here deserves it."
Some say not enough stuff here gets pruned/deleted/censored or whatever you wanna call it... some say too much... There's only ONE persons say that has ANY merit, and that's Max (And 'him' through the people he has chosen to mod in his absence)

My fence analogy, you obviously missed the point...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jeri
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 05:25 PM

I'm wondering if "Godwin's Law" for web forums as well as Usenet. If so, I suppose we can put this baby to bed. (Sometime this century, maybe.)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 05:23 PM

I seem to have censored my Name !!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 05:19 PM

Clinton,

The stuff that gets 'pruned' here deserves it. Many moons ago someone posted to say that he/she (it was a GUEST) would like to kill an elected official who is in Washington. It was one of thos posts where stuff got outta control. That was a breach of Federal law in the USA. I said so within a few posts. The GUEST post was deleted. Good call on someone's part.

My ex-father-in-law was a guest of the Third Reich in one of the camps. His wife was in Belgium during WWII, and I listened to both of them when they talked about it. So, in a manner you are right. I, personally, don't know. However, I personally DO know--if you know what I mean, and even if you don't.

The fence analogy: there are laws to handle the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 05:09 PM

19 posts in a row on this thread and none of them from Shambles moaning about how Joe Offer pooped his party. That must be a record!
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 04:51 PM

" Likening what happens here (pruning) to censorship"
I guess it's just a matter of degrees brucie...

If my neighbour builds a fence that's a foot over my side of the property line, should I not complain, because in the past white people stole the whole continent from the natives? hardly...

"have no bloody idea what it was like under the Nazis"
And unless you were there, neither do you...

"absurd"
Absolutely...   THERE we agree 100%! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 04:45 PM

People who complain about censorship have no bloody idea what it was like under the Nazis. That was censorship. Likening what happens here (pruning) to censorship is absurd, IMO. That's what it has to do with the thread, Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 11:12 AM

Looks like an old Scandinavian 'magic' symbol to me, brucie... And a Far East 'magic' symbol...   That it was at one time co-opted by the insane should not be held against the symbol...

Context is all

I don't see what it has to do with the thread though...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: RichM
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 08:40 AM

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:47 AM

Thank you, GUEST.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:11 AM

... so you provide a link to it...

Very good, brucie.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:09 AM

THIS heralds censorship. THIS ain't what happens here, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 01:05 AM

You two wanna be alone?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 06:20 PM

I don't care, I'm not GOING deep down!

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 06:00 PM

LOL! I love you deep down, Clinton...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 03:30 PM

I'd imagine it's pretty difficult to pay attention to the rest of the world, with ones head so far up ones own ass...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Raedwulf
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 02:56 PM

He usually does, & never notices that he's the only one talking or listening... :-/

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:19 PM

Which reminds me...I need to log off and get some lunch. Thanks, Clinton!

Shambles...? Carry on without us.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:16 PM

Yer right it is... I blame my state of under-caffeine-'dness...

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:13 PM

That's "fallacy", Roscoe...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 01:01 PM

"to spare the feelings of sensitive, caring people"

Falicy... no such being...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:55 PM

I want Clinton Hammond censored! He is insensitive and has strong opinions that are crap. He also had a hit done on a skunk once. He is deeply evil. His remarks should be censored, so as to spare the feelings of sensitive, caring people and animals...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:50 PM

What load of blather

Subject: RE: BS: Fu#kin' Censor THIS!
From: Peace
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:46 PM

What a friggin' drag.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 12:44 PM

Changing a thread title is not an earth-shaking decision, and there's no need to discuss every such action. If we stopped to discuss each thread title change we make, we'd never get anything done. Usually, we use common sense, and nobody objects.

If changing a thread title is not considered (by our volunteers) to be 'earth-shaking' – then by the same token - leaving it as the invited contributor intended - will not shake the earth either. For at this point, the imposed change may well be considered to 'earth-shaking' by the contributor and a little prior discussion may not go amiss – as this is still a discussion forum. Some may consider this to be common sense and more in keeping with the spirit of our forum.

I am not sure what other things are needed to get done – but I do feel that whatever is done - should always take enough time be done properly. As in cases like these there is no earth-shaking hurry – is there? So there is no real reason why the originator cannot be first consulted about any proposed action.

As in this case – when somebody does object to the anonymous imposed judgement and action – perhaps they should not then, just be presented with more – take-it-or leave-it - options?

For this was a positive musical contribution – why should there ever be any question of it being sent to the non-music section?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 09:08 AM

It's something else Rambles...

Joe is in a position of authority here - a position Max has kept him in for years - the only reason I can assume for that is that Max believes Joe does his job well ... but come on...

"control over every aspect of the current set-up".

Your lines of reasoning are insane,

This time I will try to ask you to explain to me how come Joe has authority above Max?

The only logic I can see in your arguments remains that Max is either in control or out of control at your convenience.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 07:34 AM

Sadly we ALL (at some time will) have to accept that we have no control over the postings of others.

Noreen I prefer Joe's positive side and I try to keep my postings as positive as I feel his less than positive control over every aspect of the current set-up will permit.

Why IS imposition thought now to be be the first, best and only option?

Is it really so very necessary that the thread song that I started - should have to have the title that Joe Offer imposed upon it - or else be confined to the BS?

Is this really positive? Or is it something else? I will leave you to judge.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 25 Feb 05 - 05:34 AM

Shambles, I far prefer your previous, positive attitude on this forum, as exemplified by your post to the first thread I ever started on the Mudcat, nearly 5 years ago.

You seem pretty exclusively negative these days, which gets very wearing for even the most tolerant people.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Pauline L
Date: 24 Feb 05 - 09:15 PM

I hang out at another forum that uses a Moderator system. People who post frequently are sometimes given three points to award that day. The points are "recommend" or remove." "recommend" and "remove" points are shown on the screen. Most people use their "removes" to target personal insults, which most of us don't like and don't want on our website. When a post gets a certain number of "removes," that post is deleted, but the thread remains. The method works pretty well. The group is much smaller than Mudcat, and that contributes to the success of this method.