BS: Censorship on Mudcat

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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 07:06 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: 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 - 07:09 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 07:11 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 - 07:11 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: 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 - 07:14 PM

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

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: 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,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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 08:43 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: 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-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 05 - 09:40 PM

Oh dear...

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: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 05 - 12:06 AM

And there you have it. Very good, Spaw.

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: Peace
Date: 27 Feb 05 - 12:19 AM

That to Clinton, guest, other guest and other guest.

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: 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: 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: 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,Mr (almost perfect) Red
Date: 28 Feb 05 - 09:16 AM

How about moderating purfecshun?

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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Georgiansilver
Date: 07 Mar 05 - 03:52 PM

What is moderation? Good thought but what is it?

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: 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 - 04:31 PM

Ashby de la Zouche by the sea?.....How far from the sea can you get?
Best wishes, Mike.

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: 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: 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 - 04:56 PM

Eeeeeeew...........

~S~