 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Feb 05 - 07:39 PM Yeah, well since there was a previous Accordion 'serious' thread - I started a 'silly' one for some fun, but it turned into a serious one - my frustration is not with the editors, but all the posters who didn't read closely or think on the right wavelength.... this place does have a life of it's own.... which is why I keep coming back. Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 24 Feb 05 - 04:24 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.... Nothing personal. I look forward to buying you a pint some time. But... Joe & the clones let the board breathe. I'm not saying you'd asphyxiate it, but despite your talk of freedom, I suspect you'd struggle to resist the temptation to strangle it... Regards, Rædwulf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 24 Feb 05 - 02:51 PM You know, Shambles, you're absolutely correct. Things could be done differently. Sometimes, though, choices are made that are not your choices. Such are the vicissitudes of life. The editorial actions you question were performed for good, honest reasons. These actions may not fit your criteria, even though your criteria may be perfectly valid and commendable - but what else is new? Thread titles are changed to make the Forum Index more understandable and to make threads easier to find. Threads are given titles that will help people decide whether to open or not to open a thread. If we change a thread title, we usually try to do it by adding a word or a tag, leaving the original title mostly intact - we do this out of respect for the intentions of the person who originated the thread, but also with the intention of making the Forum Menu a more useful index. While we respect the intent of the thread originator, a thread is a community creation and not subject to the control of the originator. Let's take an example. Somebody started a thread the other day and titled it Phil Ochs. There are several other threads with the same title, and we've included them all in our Phil Ochs crosslinks. The thread originator wanted to know if anyone had seen Ochs perform live - so I changed the title to "Phil Ochs - ever see him perform?." Doesn't that make sense - to differentiate this thread from all the others with the same title? The Horrors of Dafur thread started with a "Folklore" tag, but it was not related to folklore in any way and it did not belong in the music part of the Forum because it had no music information in it. It's understandable that the originator wouldn't want to put a "BS" label on a thread about a tragedy. The originator could have left the tag blank, but it's no big deal either way. In situations like that, we just remove the improper tag and move the thread to the non-music section - without the "BS" tag. We do the same with non-music obituaries - move them to the non-music side without adding a BS tag. These are common-sense things done to make Mudcat easier to navigate. 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. Note also that when we change thread titles, we ordinarily leave the message title of the original message unchanged - another attempt to honor the intention of the thread originator (we do occasionally change message titles for indexing purposes, particularly when messages contain lyrics or other music information that needs to be indexed). Non-music threads go to the bottom half of the Forum Menu because they are not related to music - not because they are "bad" threads. Sometimes, a thread will be moved from top to bottom or vice-versa as the thread develops in one direction or another. It may start out as a chit-chat thread and end up loaded with songs. I suppose one could argue that some people don't notice threads in the bottom half of the Forum, and so "important" threads should be kept up top. One could also argue that if we keep "important" non-music threads on the bottom, maybe people will learn to take a look there on occasion. Many of the editorial decisions made here are arbitrary - but most of the decisions we make in life are arbitrary, aren't they? We make choices, and life goes on. We could choose other things, and life would still go on. Or, we could stop and debate every step we take until we all come to agreement - and life would come to a standstill. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 24 Feb 05 - 07:07 AM The horrors of Darfur This thread - (perhaps one that should be brought to everyone's attention) did escape (for a while) with a FOLKLORE prefix - before being confined 'below decks'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 24 Feb 05 - 06:59 AM My recent Accordion thread got stuffed around with too - changing it from a nonsense thread to a BS thread - instead of putting the 'serious' posts into the previous sensible thread... sigh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Feb 05 - 06:49 AM The events surrounding this thread may be of interest too? Sing Song Banned |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 24 Feb 05 - 06:43 AM http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=2645&messages=94 To save going over it all again - you will find most of the detailed argument in the above thread. Questions that I had to ask many times in this thread - were eventually answered by Joe Offer. Please explain to me why it not possible, polite or desirable to obtain the originator's permission before making any changes to thread titles? Why is imposition thought now to be the first, best and only option? As for your question that you have repeated ad nauseam, my answer is that I do not believe it is necessary to expend so much time and effort on a simple editorial action. If the thread or message originator wishes to object or to discuss an editorial action with me, they are free to do so. Like many such answers to many similar questions on this subject – the answer can probably be summed-up as 'because that is what I (or sometimes 'we') choose to do' - live with it...... All I can do is to try and ensure that contributors are aware of the reality of what is happening to our forum - under the 'spin' and leave it for you to judge if this is really the right direction. Now I always had thought that what a thread was titled was a matter for the originator. I also thought that using a prefix or not – was an option for the originator. This is not the case – Joe Offer tells us that these are for our anonymous volunteers to change at will – and without first obtaining permission from the originator. Song Challenge; Camilla and Charlie were lovers The Song Challenge bit - was added anonymously – without first asking if I minded this change. I do mind this imposed change - because it was a thread parody song – with the intention of folk being invited to add to and finish this song. A song challenge is for different songs on the same subject. I asked (in this thread) if this could be changed back. The choice that Joe Offer now presents me with is to leave it as it is - or for him to remove the Song Challenge bit – and this will then result in this musical contribution being placed with the BS…………….. Not perhaps the biggest single issue facing the world - but perhaps worth bringing attention to and sensibly debating in this thread? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Blissfully Ignorant Date: 19 Feb 05 - 08:34 AM Personally, i don't think we should need censorship...we're adults, right? We should be able to know what is likely to cause trouble, and not post it. And when someone does it deliberately, we should be able to ignore it and deprive them of the attention they're looking for...but hey... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 18 Feb 05 - 07:02 PM I can't be arsed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 18 Feb 05 - 06:58 PM Deleted post |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 16 Feb 05 - 02:59 PM the truth of the matter is that if censorship was as much a problem on the Cat as roger suggests- this thread - and many others - would not be visible. What I demonstrate is that the reality of all this (probably well-intentioned) censorship - is not the same as the 'spin' and justification that is given by those volunteers who mainly wish to continue to impose their reactive judgement upon others. I suggest that this form of imposed censorship is just creating another unecessary problem, setting the wrong example, creating more division and making little difference to the problem it is supposed to be addressing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 16 Feb 05 - 01:11 PM Ah, but that's PLUS I am sure |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,MMario Date: 16 Feb 05 - 11:59 AM the truth of the matter is that if censorship was as much a problem on the Cat as roger suggests- this thread - and many others - would not be visible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 16 Feb 05 - 11:47 AM why is it that GUESTS are never censo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 15 Feb 05 - 11:39 PM You're drooling all over yourself again shambles... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 15 Feb 05 - 06:09 PM Is a benign dictatorship a reality Can closed threads be re-opened |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 08 Feb 05 - 02:20 AM I think that my preference holds sway - although both our preferences may be completely valid. Our preferences may be thought by some to be completely perfectly valid - but sadly our preferences are not completely equal. As your preferences are not open to the rest of us. Like many other posters - I prefer NOT to make abusive personal attacks on others and prefer not to incite others others to do this. Unlike our volunteers who do prefer to do this and will use any 'spin' to later justify these attacks - no matter how hypocritical that setting this poor example appears to the forum. Setting a good example by never indulging in this practice - no matter what the provocation - is a preference that would hope that should 'hold sway' if the entire purpose of all this imposed volunteer judgement was really as stated. And was not - as I suspect that it now is - (well-intentioned) people who simply do what they prefer to do (in other words - as they like) and will defend and justify all of their imposed judgement of others - by the use of clever-sounding but hollow 'spin'. As I said - I do not expect our volunteers to volunteer to stop or to volunteer to set a better example. But the facts are all here for all posters to judge them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 07 Feb 05 - 05:42 AM There, now, Roger, don't get your hinder in a binder. Try to think back on what it was I said about my reasons for posting editorial answers within the message that asks the question. Avoiding refreshing a contentious thread was a secondary reason, an advantageous side-effect. Can you think of the major reason I gave? You know, if you don't pay attention, it doesn't do me any good to bother answering your questions. So, I guess I consider this issue closed. I understand what you are saying. You don't like it when I type in brown in messages. That is your preference as to what I should do in regard to this matter. I prefer to answer questions where they are asked, because it is efficient and direct and avoids confusion - and it avoids refreshing contentious threads. And since this is my action we're talking about, I think that my preference holds sway - although both our preferences may be completely valid. And whatever the case, it really isn't a big deal either way. The fate of the world does not depend on whether or where I type in brown. -Joe Offer- It matters little what colour these 'editorial comments' come in. My request - that has been ignored in order to present yet more 'spin' - is that in order to set a good example to others - this practive be confined to only when some editorial action has in fact taken place. For the other advantage of this privilige given to our anonymous volunteers and in my opinion abused by them - is that having placed their so -called 'editorial' comment - if they are later not satisfied with it - they can come back and change or add to it (as was done above). Again without refreshing a thread that (in this case) was already posted to and refreshed in the conventional way. The rest of us ordinary mortals would have to either simply accept what we had originally posted or have to post again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:59 AM The facts are all here - it is up to those reading this to judge. In the use of these so-called 'editorial' comments - all that is being politely requested (and ignored) - is they are always confined to accompany some 'editorial action'. Where there is no such action imposed upon us in the thread - any contribution (or judgement on the worth of the thread))that any volunteer wishes to make - can then be made under the same conditions as everyone else. By either refreshing the thread or not doing - so by ignoring the thread. In both these cases - the volunteer in question had chosen - earlier made a contribution in the conventional manner and as a result had already refreshed the thread once. Clever reasons and justification have already been given and can probably continue to be made for the defence of this double standard. It would be nice if they were not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:15 AM Another 'editorial comment' made in this thread (and not refreshing this thread) when there was no editorial action taken. The thread where I spoke of contentiousness wasn't particularly contentious. I was speaking of other threads. -Joe Offer- The thread referred to as 'wasn't particulaly contentious' - was still subject to two 'editorial' contributions to this thread - neither of these contributions - refreshed it. Why? As it it was not judged as a 'contentious' thread - why not set a good example and contribute to it in the conventional that is open to everyone else and refresh the thread. Or ignore the thread - if you did not wish to refresh it?
You know, if you don't pay attention, it doesn't do me any good to bother answering your questions. So, I guess I consider this issue closed. I understand what you are saying. You don't like it when I type in brown in messages. That is your preference as to what I should do in regard to this matter. I prefer to answer questions where they are asked, because it is efficient and direct and avoids confusion - and it avoids refreshing contentious threads. And since this is my action we're talking about, I think that my preference holds sway - although both our preferences may be completely valid. And whatever the case, it really isn't a big deal either way. The fate of the world does not depend on whether or where I type in brown. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 07 Feb 05 - 02:03 AM I do always try to contribute as positively as I can. But as everyone can see from this latest personal attack by you upon me - made just after my plea for a better example to be set - my 'relevance' - mental capacity and just about every other part of my personality are judged on the basis only what I post. By you and your other nameless and numberless volunteer 'posse' members - who directly and by setting such a poor public example from this special postion of responsibility - are encouraging other posters to judge others in the same needless fashion and to post personal attacks also. Some other volunteers use their 'editorial comments' to contribute to this discussion (so as not to refresh this thread). Any comment on the issue from anyone will be welcome (whatever their view). But you (as a known volunteer) refreshing this thread by making only one of your usual bullying personal attacks - will only make my point and just make things worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 06 Feb 05 - 05:00 PM I agree, Roger. I think that your hauling out this old post is your subconscious way of acknowledging I am right. Why don't you just try contributing like you did in the old days. You had some relevance then. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:37 PM Subject: RE: Tech: Can closed threads be re-opened? From: Big Mick - PM Date: 19 Sep 04 - 10:31 PM Why do you feed this creature?? I just read the whole thing and find 99% of it just fodder for this poor guy to continue to feel relevant with his waffle twaffle approach. I am going to suggest that all of us shun this and all of his posts, with two exceptions. I would suggest that only Sir john9 and Catspaw answer him from here on out. Let's give it try, eh? This ought to be fun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Big Mick Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:16 PM The only thing that you can be sure of, Roger, is that I will point out that your whining seems pathological to me. Apparently there are many others that agree. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:13 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- I fear that this list can only increase - perhaps it could be first publicly explained – why when there is no editing action taken or required here – that our volunteer's reply was chosen to be made in the form of an editorial comment (so as not to refresh this thread)? Not an option that is open to all of us - as explained in the following? Date: 01 Feb 05 - 05:23 AM on this thread http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=77737&messages=82 But if I reply to a question or comment within the message where the question was asked, there's no question to whom I am responding, is there? I find that efficient and clear, and see no reason to do otherwise. It also serves to avoid refreshing threads that are contentious, even though contentious people might like to force me to refresh them. -Joe Offer- Perhaps it can be publicly explained what exactly our volunteers find 'contentious' about this thread - that they do not wish to refresh it? And are 'contentious people' now those who simply dare to hold and express a different view to those of our volunteers?
Bert who will protect us from deliberate personal attacks (and incitement for other to indulge in these) – when they are made upon us - by our volunteers (and defended and justified by them)? Some following examples of the double standard that is making this forum look foolish and oppressive. Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete From: Joe Offer Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:01 AM Max, Jeff, and Joe were off doing other things today, and missed this one. It's a personal attack, and it isn't allowed. Since so many have posted to it, I guess I won't delete it - but I will close it. This is one of the "no-brainers" that the Clones should have deleted early on, no matter what Shambles thinks. Clones, don't let Shambles care you off - you're doing a good job, but you should have deleted this and told us about it. Bob, I'm sorry this happened. Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something. -Joe Offer- Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete From: Joe Offer Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:29 AM I could delete Bob's name, but I doubt that would do any good. the damage has been done. The thread should have been deleted as soon as it appeared, and I'm sorry that didn't happen. But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation. Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit. -Joe Offer- Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete From: Joe Offer Date: 12-Jun-04 - 03:23 AM Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying. -Joe Offer- I can deal with deliberate personal attacks (even from our volunteers, if I have to). By not ever responding in kind – but I cannot accept incitement from our volunteers to encourage other posters to indulge in the very activity all this imposed volunteer judgement is supposed to be protecting us from. There are sadly many other examples of this double standard being set by our volunteers – incredibly and sadly - all of it defended and justified by them. Perhaps Bert you can do your best to ensure that this practice – and all of this volunteer imposed judgement - can now stop and a less hypocritical and a more positive example of conduct is set for the forum's posters to follow? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 06 Feb 05 - 04:08 PM I gave up on Slashdot and Usenet a long time ago... That they might stink more than some of the shit here, is hardly praise at all... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Teresa Date: 06 Feb 05 - 03:38 PM Clinton says, "I suspect a lot of shit-disturbers come here to post because they aren't allowed to pull their kinds of crap on any other message boards..." Ahem! I respectfully disagree! Checked out Slashdot or Usenet lately? Those make this place look like milk and cookies. 'tis a good thing, too in my opinion. Teresa |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 06 Feb 05 - 03:13 PM "hasn't been deleted, or closed" More's the pity |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 06 Feb 05 - 11:08 AM oops.. false alarm well it did'nt show up on search for me and I dont know why the other guest couldnt find it |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 06 Feb 05 - 10:59 AM "BS: Prove that I ain't 'The Man'! U can't" hasn't been deleted, or closed. It's right here: http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=78083 ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 06 Feb 05 - 10:56 AM why indeed ? it seemed harmless enough for a BS thread. someone here definitely has a problem with mudcatters having fun and silly [drunk ???] laughs together a weekend |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,mystified Date: 06 Feb 05 - 10:48 AM "BS.Prove that I ain't 'The Man'! U can't" DELETED >> why ??????????????
-Joe Offer- |
|
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.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 05 Feb 05 - 01:26 PM LOL!! MG... yer almost as funny as Joe! hehehehehe |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Once Famous Date: 05 Feb 05 - 01:09 PM I would like to volunteer and write the code of conduct. OK? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 05 Feb 05 - 12:35 PM I suspect a lot of shit-disturbers come here to post because they aren't allowed to pull their kinds of crap on any other message boards... If mudcat'd pony up, these people'd be FORCE to go the hell away... What some here call "Censorship" (as if it's some kind of dirty word or something) most message boards call day-to-day moderation... And they seem to tick over quite nicely... What's wrong with posting, and enforcing a Code Of Conduct? And to the 'mods' who claim they don't want the job of such... fine... hand your keys over to someone who will do something to help this place... The only other option folks, is that if you don't like that mudcat ISN'T moderated, please visit the egress... (Cause things aren't likely to change around here... Someone would have to care enough to want to act... and have the back-bone TO act...) It's not like Mudcat is the ONLY such place on the net... If it bothers you so much, find somewhere else to post... Or accept this place for what it is... and that no matter how much you'd like it to, it's not gonna change... It is after all, just a message board... (I know... I know.. "Oh but we're a community!" yer gonna say... well, EVERY message board group says that.... So even if you are, it's not special... unless YOU think it is... then sure... it's special... to you...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 05 Feb 05 - 06:45 AM The 'whining' (of a few noisy posters - over many years) is - what I suggest - has caused all of this quite unecessary imposed judgement. And the 'spin' - that all this censorship is vigously defended by, as being required. Despite its obvious inablity to prevent over time, the only thing it is supposed to be set-up to combat and protect us from. For despite all the unpleasant threats made to occasional offenders by our volunteers and the deleting and closure of entire threads - the same long-term offenders are still offending (and addressed here by our volunteers quite politely). This leads many folk to post and question IF any censorship at all, IS in fact taking place.......For IF it is taking place - it does not appear to be affecting the offending posters or improving the general tone. For all posters have always had all the tools they needed to deal with threads and posts that may not be to their taste. The practice of passing judgement on the worth of other poster's - rather than just noting, responding or ignoring the views contained in their post - has been encouraged by our volunteers to be just about the 'only game in town'. The constant call from many other posters - for others to be encouraged to follow the sensible and effective example - (that I suggest the majority of posters manage to set without too much difficulty) - which is never to post to respond to obvious provocation - is ignored by our volunteers. This example is ignored in favour of invited support for continued imposed judgement action taken as they wish, by our volunteers. Who seemingly themselves are incapable of not responding in public (and in kind) to obvious provocation and generally behave just as they wish - whilst excusing and justifying every one of their actions. That this negative example is the one that is generally being followed by many other posters - is perhaps not too surprising. I have no expectation that any of our volunteers (known or anonymous)are going to volunteer to stop. For although this is not a paid position - it would obviously appear to have its rewards as there are no shortage of willing volunteer judges. However and perhaps, if more and more of the rest of us do set and follow a more positive posting example - it can finally be demonstrated by us - that there is no need for any of our volunteers and their judgement to be imposed upon us? Then we will all be happy.......? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 04 Feb 05 - 07:59 AM Censor Official with power to supress whole or parts of books, plays, films, news,letters etc, on grounds of obscenity,threat to security, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Amos Date: 04 Feb 05 - 07:09 AM It's not censorship in the institutional sense. It's a civilizing restraint. But whining comes with the territory. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Gurney Date: 04 Feb 05 - 04:42 AM Somehow I always pictured that as someone eating sparkplugs... I've posted this before, and now again. I've been on a forum that was virtually closed by backbiting and illwill. And no, I took no part in it. Twats will always be with us, but a lot of guests are members in making, and contributers, so I do approve of guests being able to post. I vote (if anyone is interested) that the present level of moderating be maintained. I don't think it is really censorship. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 03 Feb 05 - 04:34 AM The breakfast of champions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Feb 05 - 01:10 AM 69!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Amos Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:29 PM We tried that, Nameless. It didn't work well at all. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 02 Feb 05 - 12:14 PM Perhaps we should also leave the Iraq situation to the people who try hard to get it right...and stop criticising them....and leave our Governments to do what they do best....they do it better than we would O.K??????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Once Famous Date: 01 Feb 05 - 10:26 PM I'm sure he'd get the card, anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 01 Feb 05 - 05:00 AM Even got Prince Charles's address wrong!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Clinton Hammond Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:48 PM "...some way to weed out banality and insipid attempts at humor that aren't funny" There is... don't post to them... This place'd be pretty damn quiet if it wasn't for those post though... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Once Famous Date: 31 Jan 05 - 09:16 PM Send all correspondence to: Martin Gibson c/o Prince Charles Fuckingham Palace London, England Planet Earth I'll be waiting for your card, DICK! Hah! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Richard Bridge Date: 31 Jan 05 - 07:05 PM I think it might sometimes improve the tone if the true names and addresses of those who set out to be offensive (guess who I nominate) were published. I really (sometimes) would like to know what makes some of the offenders tick. Speaking as one of the earlier offenders, with a thread a long time back called "Has Gargoyle got piles?" - I don't care if he has piles, I just wanted to know why sometimes he can be a rational and constructive individual and sometimes quite - well, you know. As John Barden (or was it Dave Bryant?) said some time ago - we use our real names, and you can easily trace us. We accept responsibiity for waht we say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Jim Tailor Date: 31 Jan 05 - 06:48 PM "...some way to weed out banality and insipid attempts at humor that aren't funny;" But then it wouldn't be cross-cultural/transatlantic anymore, would it? And who would hold sway? ...the Brits who don't get our humor, or we who don't get theirs? |