 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:11 AM I am calm, Roger - and I did not accuse you of anything, publicly or otherwise. Do me the curtesy of reading my words carefully: I warned you (as in "alerted you") that repetition of that statement, after it has been satisfactorily explained to the rest of the participants in this thread, "can appear as willful slander". Notice the words "can" and "appear". Repetition as a reinforcing method for an argument belongs to the kindergarden. In the grownup world it appears willful, and can be construed as malicious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:38 AM To summarise: This is not evidence of evil intent. Calm down George - I agree. Perhaps before you go on to publicly accuse anyone of 'slander' - you could produce some evidence that I have claimed there was any 'evil intent'? The evidence provided - proves what I stated it did. Nothing more and nothing less. However, if someone was to accuse our volunteers of evil intent - a convincing defence against this charge may be difficult. If there is nothing to hide - then what is the harm in being open and making this clear? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 29 Apr 05 - 03:22 AM Dear Professor Hawking Or may I call you Stephen? I understand from your publisher's lawyers that you are unhappy with a recent action taken by this library? I refer to the combination of your book – A Brief History Of Time -with Professor Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Dr Wolfgang von Pedant's two definitive works on the Aardvark – Digging The Dirt and The Truth About Termite Mounds. I think that I know our readers needs better than you and I think that this combination of the three volumes into one it makes sense and will enable our readers to find what they are looking for much more easily. This is my only motive in this as I have decided that the library's priority consideration must be to its indexing. I am sorry that you may not be in agreement – but "learn to live with it". The choice of title for this combined work was one suggested by one of the library's best behaved readers. "QUIT FUCKING WITH THE AARDVARK' is a title which I think will best enable our readers to find the information they require. Yours truly The Chief of the Mudcat Editing Team. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,MMario Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:18 PM 'Spaw - figures you post on a 69! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:15 PM I would think that 0 0would be more representative of the breasts, or perhapsU Uwith age.................Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:13 PM Joe - we will have to check with the High Potent-ate of the Church of the golden Globes - but I suspect you are correct. Congratulations! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:12 PM No... that's 998, Joe. You got it upside down. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:09 PM Do I get any credit for posting Message #866? Isn't that the Sign of the Breast, or something like that? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: gnu Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:47 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:02 PM 10 and 2 added to this post gives a skip-straight cripple mr. onion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:01 PM which brings the conversation back to the point when he first brought it up |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:59 PM LOL, Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bill D Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:53 PM "The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion??" yes, indeed it is. That would increase the time and effort to make non-controversial 'tidying' edits immeasurably. It would essentially eliminate needed 'clean up' of multiple threads, etc. Perhaps that would suit YOU just fine....99% of us disagree. Doesn't majority rule PLUS tacit approval of the owner mean anything to you, Shambles? No, I suppose not...you have the bit of your personal idea of 'righteous indignation' in your teeth, and you will run with it until you drop. True Believers aren't swayed by reason OR authority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:47 PM El Greco, maybe I've missed something but I thought shambles latest "evidence" was in response to Joe saying: Shambles, if you ever hear from somebody who objects to the change of title of a thread they originated, please have them contact me. I will be happy to entertain their request that the title be changed back to its original form. The "evidence" (where relevant) I see shambles has provided does indeed proove that Joe is willing to reverse an action where appropriate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:45 PM Sorry - typo: In the second paragraph below I meant to write: "If anyone finds this not to be the case"; though the statement makes sense as it is anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:40 PM How come if people on Le Sham's side are so scared of the clones, they don't just post as a Guest? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:35 PM Roger, sorry, but this does not constitute evidence of bad intention (to which you clearly allude) on behalf of the editorial team; you have posted this "evidence" before, and it has been found inadequate. In particular, the reprimand to the GUEST that was flooding the forum was well-deserved, in my opinion. And I find Joe's explanations for all of the actions (and prompt corrective action in the case of mistaken deletions or changes) fully satisfactory. If anyone finds this to be the case, they are free to say so - you don't need to, you posted the evidence in the first place, so your view is clear. One warning though: Repeated presentation as "evidence", without the context, of Joe's statements like the one towards the GUEST can appear as a willful attempt to besmirch Joe's (or the editorial team's) character; they in fact appear as judgemental "attacks" on your behalf. If you don't mean them to be taken as such, you should really make this clear. To summarise: This is not evidence of evil intent. This has been satisfactorily explained. If this is the only evidence you have, further insistence can appear as willful slander. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:08 PM The evidence requested. Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles - PM Date: 18 Mar 05 - 08:35 PM Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Bert Date: 06 Feb 05 - 12:43 AM The only censorship on Mudcat is to delete deliberate personal attacks. If you are the victim of any other kind of censorship send a PM to Joe, Max, Pene or any of the Joe Clones (even me). I assure you that you will receive a reasoned reply. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, there are a few other things we delete - racism & hate messages, Spam, copy-paste non-music articles that fill more than one screen - I think that about covers it. -Joe Offer- [in brown] -------------------------------------------------------------------- It would appear that it far from covers it. Posts claiming the 100th etc post in a thread - must be added to the seemingly endless and increasing list of things that must be deleted. Perfectly logical Jim - just look at the damage to the whole fabric of the forum that will be done if these terrible and subversive contributions are allowed by our volunteers to remain....... Well apart from all that - what else have the Roman's done for us? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer - PM Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 AM Well, Ted, I have to admit it - your #200 message was deleted - but there were two botched messages deleted before yours, so you were actually #202....or so. -Joe Offer- Here's Ted's (deleted) message: Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: flamenco ted - PM Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:59 AM 200!! Terry, eat my shorts yet again! ------------------------------------------------------------------ The title that the originator gave to the following B/S (non-music) thread was changed. I blame the Romans… It was thought important for some unknown reason - for some unknown but trusted volunteer to change the thread title to – I blame the Romans….(for Rabbits). Not sure that we can blame the Romans for this, or indeed the Greeks? As this concerns me - I will do my best to bring attention (in this thread) to the routine tinkering to contributions like this and any other form of imposed censorship action - but as these seem to be increasing - I will not see them all. Perhaps when you see evidence of these - you could bring attention to them in this thread? Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles - PM Date: 16 Apr 05 - 01:49 PM Unless of course you would not feel safe in posting a view that could be thought in any way to be a criticism of the semi-official line of our current trusted volunteers and their supporters and also become the subject of their displeasure? If that is the case - then you can send the details to me in a PM and I will post it here to inform other posters of the reality of what our public discussion forum has sadly now become. For example....... Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted. Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass. -Joe Offer- From the following thread. http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=56969#894819 Note that the above statement from Joe Offer was posted two years ago, in response to an anonymous poster who was flooding the forum with lengthy copy-paste messages that were available elsewhere on the Internet. Context is important. The "Romans" thread should not have been renamed. I changed it back. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Apr 05 - 01:54 PM
On December 18, 1985, you started a thread at the Mudcat Cafe titled "Lyr req: Lyrics Request." There are 18 replies in the thread, all suggesting that you would get a better response if you started a thread titled "Lyr req: This Land Is Your Land." I see that there are 37 other threads titled "Lyr req: Lyrics Request" - all from Guest,Lynn, and all requesting the same song. Would you mind terribly if I retitled the thread "Lyr req: This Land Is Your Land" and closed the other threads and crosslinked them to the first one? We here at Mudcat (Max, Jeff, Joe, Mick, Spaw, Kat, and Shambles) realize that your thread is an expression of your Inner Being, and the 37 threads may be an important message to the Mudcat Communtiy, so we certainly would not want to change your thread title without your permission. Sincerely, WE of the The Mudcat Cafe (Max, Jeff, Joe, Mick, Spaw, Kat, and Shambles) Dear Person who hasn't posted since 1997: In January, 1997, you started a thread at the Mudcat Cafe titled, "Sidmouth." Every year since then, somebody has started a thread titled "Sidmouth," so there are nine threads with the same title. Would you mind if I changed the title of your thread to "Sidmouth Festival 1997"? We here at the Mudcat Cafe (Max, Jeff, Joe, Mick, Spaw, Kat, and Shambles) realize that the title of your thread may be very important to you, and we would not want to presume to change it without your permission. Sincerely, WE of the Mudcat Cafe (Max, Jeff, Joe, Mick, Spaw, Kat, and Shambles) Shambles, if you ever hear from somebody who objects to the change of title of a thread they originated, please have them contact me. I will be happy to entertain their request that the title be changed back to its original form. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 28 Apr 05 - 12:54 PM Without this thread - they would not have been corrected - so it has served this useful service at least. complete and total conjecture - unsupported by any facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 28 Apr 05 - 12:48 PM Wolfgang - perhaps we can leave the forum to judge all of our relative foolishness and our honesty? No one is forcing anyone to read this and no one is being forced into to making judgements of the worth of fellow posters. It is a sad day on our forum when folk post and encourage others to shout these honestly held and moderately expressed views down or to gang-up and play elaborate and silly games to ridicule them. It is a sad day indeed on our forum - when this sort of treatment of the views of fellow posters is thought to be acceptable. The evidence is all here and I have proved beyond doubt in this evidence what I set out to do. This was simply that what was defended in the 'spin' is NOT what was happening. I will leave you to judge from this evidence and the answers given to the qustions and suggestons made........... Just in the time of this thread - two instances of editing action being imposed upon fellow posters without their knowledge - were judge to be wrong and had to be corrected. Without this thread - they would not have been corrected - so it has served this useful service at least. If Joe's 'indexing' is thought to be important - no one is suggestion that it should not take place . The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 28 Apr 05 - 10:17 AM Wolfgang I have found over the years that you have spoken a lot of sense. I have not found that to be true much lately I still have no idea what you are trying to say in your last post. (Shambles) Shambles, I have not tried to speak sense in these two posts. And I'm truly glad you see it this way. I have picked one of your posts, disregarded the context and intention, have turned this post into an accusation that you do not act consistently over time, have used the words 'this time...honest' as a character defamation and have constructed a contradiction between the one Shambles and the other (which one can we trust?). In other words, I have done to you what I perceive you doing to Joe and others here. The problem is that while you still can see when someone else stops making sense you fail to see that you have stopped making sense long ago. Outside of the context of these threads you seem a likable, sensible and good guy. In these threads, the way you argue makes so little sense. As Joe said what you seem to want is fair and debatable but the way you argue for that makes yorself the worst enemy of any reasonable discussion about the theme. I have parodied your style in my 27 Apr 05 - 03:26 post. You must have seen that. Making fun of your type of argumentation is kind an act of despair in this discussion. But no parody can be as good as the original. You are the one playing the fool since long and the saddest aspect is you don't seem to realise that. No, it's even worse, you are not playing. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Paco Rabanne Date: 28 Apr 05 - 09:45 AM I wish I could think of something intelligent to say to spur you on to the 900th post, but I read this stuff and my brain glazes over! How you lot be bothered with all this is beyond me. This thread makes brother Amos's threads seem like a laugh and a titter! Swindon, the true path! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Gervase Date: 28 Apr 05 - 09:25 AM Come on George, only another 51 to go, and it would make Ted or Terry's day! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 28 Apr 05 - 09:15 AM Gervase is right - the comparison with election clerks altering votes is facetious, and can only be treated as a joke. And his suggestion about posting "censored" remarks somewhere else and then telling us opens the doors completely and invalidates the arguments about censorship, irrespective of which view we each hold. It kills the thread, and no 900 post need occur. I hereby invite anyone who feels they have been unfairly censored in the past to act on Gervase's suggestion and "let us have it". If no such actions take place in the next few days, this clearly and irrefutably is not, and has never been an issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 28 Apr 05 - 08:55 AM Steady on Gervase - you might 'bring the server to a standstill'. *Smiles* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Gervase Date: 28 Apr 05 - 08:49 AM "Perhaps someone even thinks that it would be a good idea for election clerks to be able to change your vote?" What? What absolute twaddle! You can go off and post what you like somewhere else and then tell us where it is and we can go and read it in its uncensored entirety. If, that is, you're being censored. Joe, however, states above that every word you have written is available somewhere on the Mudcat - all he has done is delete multiple posts and combine threads. Perhaps someone even thinks that it would be a good idea for people to be able to vote several times in the same election? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 28 Apr 05 - 08:27 AM If Joe's 'indexing' is thought to be important - no one is suggestion that it should not take place . The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion? Anyone think that this is such a terrible suggestion - or too complicated - and would like to explain why? Or is anyone brave enough to post publicly and accept that there is no reason why this suggestion should not be implemented and that it would in fact be a good idea? Perhaps someone even thinks that it would be a good idea for election clerks to be able to change your vote? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Gervase Date: 28 Apr 05 - 08:21 AM "The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought" Unfortunately there seem to be some around here so prolix and prone to logorrhoea that seeking their consent would result in an exchange of PMs so prolific that it would bring the server to a standstill! Talk about being like a terrier with a sock... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 28 Apr 05 - 08:14 AM Is there any point in repeating the same things over and over? Really, is there? Not sure – perhaps you should repeat it – like you did the following? Have you discussed your concerns with Max? If so, what was his response? If not, why not? Spaw---still waiting Whose advice to others in this thread – but which he can't appear to follow himself - includes QUIT FUCKIN' WITH THE AARDVARK! Well put, spaw. Me too. LOL *Smiles* If Joe's 'indexing' is thought to be important - no one is suggestion that it should not take place . The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 28 Apr 05 - 07:56 AM Well put, spaw. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 28 Apr 05 - 07:46 AM So, if there was ever a need to choose between what is good for reader and what is good for writers, I favour the former. I note the use of the word 'if'.... But is there now such a need? If Joe's 'indexing' is thought to be important - no one is suggestion that it should not take place . The only fairly modest suggestion is that the originators consent is first sought. Is that really such a terrible suggestion? To my mind - any changes here to a contribution that are imposed by a fellow poster without the original poster's knowledge or permission - is censorship. There may be rare occasions where such imposition can be justified - but is this 'indexing' really one of them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Spaw Date: 28 Apr 05 - 06:41 AM So Joe throws out an olive branch and Shambles rips the leaves off, strips the bark, breaks it into small pieces, pisses all over it, and finally runs it through the shredder....LMAO.....Right, then! Roger, there is no doubt in my mind and should be absolutely no doubt in yours that those who are posting here in this thread are crystal clear as to your concerns. You have often rambled as is your wont and added in additional concerns, but in essence I think this may be your position: You believe that what is written here bu anyone posting here is sacrosanct and not to be changed for any reason without the approval of the author. You see an extremely limited number of reasons why this should ever occur. You think the way to keep things flowing and pleasant and smooth is to set the example through our own postings. You believe that any real concerns can and should behandled by Max himself who has said we are the ones making the rules and he only wishes to facillitate the process. Now I am not wholly sure of this, but I think that you also believe that Joe is and has been taking actions of which Max does not or would not approve and his Clones anonymity creates a bad message sent to the membership. The fact that at times differences have occured between Joe and the Clones which many view as a good check and balance (speaking as one who has both won and lost fights with Joe), you see as the fallacy of the system and/or/also that Joe is imposing his will upon the membership outside of what Max has stated in that post from '99. I am sure you can elaborate on this and add in additional concersn, not to mention getting in all of the nuances of each thought and word. I think though that I have captured at least the basics of your position as simply stated as possible. My take on all of this is that you're wrong. Had I said "full of shit" I know that you would consider that a personal attack rather than aa attempt to lighten the mood as I would, so again I say, you're wrong. It really doesn't matter whether either of us is right as long as our statements are on record unchanged as you wish them to be. Are there any of your thoughts that remain unexpressed? If so, please post them. Understand this.....Nothing that anyone here can say will change your mind in the least (it certainly hasn't so far) and the only final answer to any of your concerns must come from Max and not be based on your interpretation of a 6 year old post that I seriously doubt he ever believed would turn into your own personal vision and mantra. I think that others posting on the thread might be in agreement with me, but I would invite them to add, subtract, or completely disagree on anything I have said. Even though I am Big Bad Spaw, controller and dominator of this place and the baddest ass in the joint, I assure one and all they will suffer no repercussions nor wake up with the head of Mister Ed in the bed beside them. You might Roger, but they won't. Point is this.....If we all understand each other and we have each made our feelings known, then I think the only thing left to do is await a word or two from Max. Is there any point in repeating the same things over and over? Really, is there? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:01 AM I like your idea, Gervase - that would indeed be a way to bypass any unwanted censorship, making this whole discussion moot. I also lean towards the emphasis on readers for Mudcat. That has indeed been historically its purpose (see the discussion in "Mudcat Ecperiment Works"): as a resource, akin to a library, where indeed much of the content is contributed by (some) of the readers. Over the years it has become a place to meet socially, and as more and more Mudcatters have met each other physically, new levels of communication have been reached. These levels include the occasional sharp langage and judgement, just as you would in outside life. But the original purpose - to be a resource - is not invalidated by that. So, if there was ever a need to choose between what is good for reader and what is good for writers, I favour the former. In this context, many of the editorial decisions that are being disputed here, make perfect sense. By the way Roger, I betrayed no confidence - you did mention your knowledge of the feelings of others in the terms I stated, sometime in March; it was around the time of the discussion of the meaning of "we". I know this, because I discussed it off-line with someone (not the editorial team, by the way). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Gervase Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:03 AM "Joe whether you or anyone else judges that my concerns are legitimate or illegitimate - they will remain my concerns and be perfectly legitimate to me or any other poster to express. " Quite - but is there really a need to post to the point where those concerns make you either a laughing stock or a major pain in the posterior. Surely by now, if there was genuinely a silent majority which agreed with you, it would have spoken. As it is, of the many thousand registered users and the many hundred regular posters, I see no rush to stand by your side. Which leads on to your claim that "on our forum the readers ARE the writers". I'm afraid that isn't the case. There are many more passive readers than active writers, and that reflects the purpose of the Mudcat as I understand it. An enormous number of people simply browse this forum and the DT to find information. I would imagine the majority of them couldn't give a tuppenny fart about our witterings on politics, Hull or William Shatner, but we are able to do that because Max Spiegel (who owns the server on which all this wittering resides) allows us to. He has invited us - a bunch of disparate lunatics united by a love of blues and folk - to come and play in his sitting room, but it remains his sitting room to do with what he wishes. That there are so few rules is astonishing (as Catspaw has pointed out), and I have absolutely no problem with Joe's housekeeping. In fact the only person who does seem to have a problem with it is you. If you genuinely feel that you are being censored and that you have something important to say which isn't getting through to us, why not go here and create a web page on which to make your point and then bung a link to it on this thread. Then we can all see if your claims have any validity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:50 AM Max has shown that he can make his feelings very clear - as he has of you. If Max were to be stating the things that Joe has stated here publicly - I would be able to publicly ask the same questions of Max. Max has not- so we are left to discuss them with with Joe. But Joe has told you on many occasions that he works in consultation with Max. Why do refuse to believe him? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:35 AM Jon Max has shown that he can make his feelings very clear - as he has of you. If Max were to be stating the things that Joe has stated here publicly - I would be able to publicly ask the same questions of Max. Max has not- so we are left to discuss them with with Joe. Joe Well, I have to say that there is value in Shambles/Roger's perspective. Most of the rest of us don't share that perspective, so it is difficult for us to understand his priorities. Shambles sees Mudcat primarily as a vehicle for self-expression, as a place for people to express their creativity and ideas and lyrics and whatnot. As such, he believes Mudcat should orient itself toward the priorities of the people who post messages. And it is true that Mudcat has been that, and has served many people very well as a means of self-expression. Why do I get the idea from this that we are being served with the notice from Joe – that the Mudcat serving many people well as a means of self-expression is about to come to an end? *Smiles* 'Most of us'- - I suspect don't share anyone's elses's perspective for has it not been made very clear that posters to the Mudcat Discussion Forum are individuals with many different perspectives? Enabling all of this to be pooled equally– has been the Mudcat's strength. My priority (if I indeed have one) is only that this can continue to be the case. Let us be clear. Joe are you informing us that your wish to 'index' the contributions of others – should now take priority over what is freely contributed by them? And to the extent that you will now change the titles that the originators have given and combine many threads together under a title of your choosing – as a matter of routine and without the originator's knowledge or consent? That is what it looks like from the following. I think the majority of us see Mudcat as primarily a place that is oriented toward the reader, rather than toward the person who furnishes information. You may think that – but how do you know if this is true? And if it were true – should not your role only be to facilitate for ALL contributors – and not just for who you see as MOST of them? As such, Mudcat should make the priorities of the readers its primary consideration. It is wonderful that so many people have furnished all this information and creativity, but the reader needs help in finding his way around this maze. That's why we index and title and organize and remove duplicates. We don't do it to offend the originator, and we have no reason to offend the originator. It's not a matter of "personal taste" - it's simply a matter of doing the best we can to help people find their way around, building a roadmap or a highway system so that people can find their way around the 1.47 million messages that have been posted here. Are the fine search facilities not sufficient for finding our way around the 'maze'? My concern is less over these proposed changes – which may well prove useful – but the fact that these changes MUST be imposed. Even if this 'indexing' is considered to be so important – is it really so very important that any changes like these MUST now be imposed by you – without the originator's knowledge or consent as a matter of routine? Would it not be more in the spirit of The Mudcat to always ask the originator's permission first and if this is not possible – to leave their contribution as posted? I am quite sure that if the change was thought important enough – that consent would be as freely given as the original contribution was – but I feel that it would be showing the correct respect – to always ask first. What would be the problem with this approach? Other than the fact that you personally don't want to adopt it? The point you appear to miss – is that on our forum the readers ARE the writers. The same people are entitled to the same respect – whether they are writing to or reading from our forum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:14 AM Max has stated that he sees his role as only to facilitate. Joe our forum serves many roles - do you now see your role on our forum as to rule on which role will take priority? For in this case are both considerations equally valid and is it not just a matter of personal taste and one for the community to decide? At which point shambles, your concerns cease to be legitimate. Once again, you don't not know what Max's view is now but presume on a nearly 6 year old post. When I asked you why you didn't ask Max, you told me it was "our" (all posters) fault and now you go back to blaming Joe inflicting his personal choice on the forum. Joe has said he consults with Max and even if you don't believe him, it is ridiculous to think that Joe has been kept in a senior position by Max if he is not acting in accordance with Max's wishes. Ask Max what his current policies are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 05 - 09:12 PM Roger's concerns are legitimate - but it's just a matter of choice. The general tip of the scale is that Mudcat is a reader-oriented forum that assists readers in finding information - but still does its best to respect and encourage the free expression of the people who post here. If as you say - things are a matter of choice – when they are - will it always be a matter of your personal choice being imposed? Joe whether you or anyone else judges that my concerns are legitimate or illegitimate - they will remain my concerns and be perfectly legitimate to me or any other poster to express. Will it remain the case that Mudcatters have the choice to read my concerns - or not? For as long as they are moderately expressed - they will find a place somewhere on our Public Discussion Forum - whatever your judgement of their poster's worth may be. So perhaps you could set the example of NOT passing judgement on the worth or right of a poster to post - but confine yourself to either responding to or ignoring what the poster actually says? As I will now. You could perhaps argue that public libraries are for the reader. But you would also have to equally accept that without the writer - there would be nothing for the reader to read or information for them to find. However, any library that showed so little respect to its authors by considering that its employees could - as they wished - re-name the authors works - in the name of 'indexing' – and this took priority - would soon find its supply of books and information drying-up. Perhaps anonymous volunteers imposing these changes to thread titles as a matter of routine - without the poster's knowledge or agreement - will now stop on our forum? For I am sure that if the required change is in the best interests of our forum – I am sure that permission to change it will be granted. I am sure you will agree that it would show the correct respect to the poster – to always be asked first (where this is possible)? Max has stated that he sees his role as only to facilitate. Joe our forum serves many roles - do you now see your role on our forum as to rule on which role will take priority? For in this case are both considerations equally valid and is it not just a matter of personal taste and one for the community to decide? It is at the heart of my (legitimate) concerns that our forum be shaped only by its contributions and the personal tastes of ALL its contributors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 05 - 08:08 PM No Wolfgang - I have tried but I still have no idea what you are trying to say in your last post. If it is any consolation to you (and perhaps it won't be) - I did PM jeffp. Roger suggested that there are many more dissatisfied members, some of whom have PMed Roger to express their support, but they are afraid to post their views on this thread for fear of being "attacked" as Roger is. El Greko - I do not think that I ever publicly stated that I had PMs expressing the support of others. I may well have informed you of that in a PM. Perhaps you will show a little more care with the information you post publicly? I certainly did not ever state publicly that the posters of any of these PMs had stated that they were afraid to post publicly for fear of being "attacked". However, from my experience - posting a minority view on this subject is not one that I would currently encourage any other poster to do on our forum - in the current climate. Whether to post publicly - must be a matter for each poster to decide. However, a little public support - for balance - would be as welcome as it would be surprising - under the circumstances. Perhaps someone can count them - but of the total of over 500 posts to this thread (so far) how many individual posters have made a contribution? For some posters have contributed many times. I am not sure but I would be surprised if the total was any more than 200 individuals. So however unlikely you may think it - it is still possible that the vast majority of Mucatters may in fact be in perfect agreement with all of my concerns and suggestions..... But if that were to be the case - would it change your view - if your view were to prove to be a minority one? I suspect not - so why would anyone think that I should be persuaded to change mine - only by the suggestion that it was a minority one? My view is that even one voice of disatisfaction on our forum should be accomodated - if possible. They should certainly not be subject to campaigns of the sort of personal judgement (that sadly has now become all too common on our forum) and told to go somewhere else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Apr 05 - 07:06 PM Well, I have to say that there is value in Shambles/Roger's perspective. Most of the rest of us don't share that perspective, so it is difficult for us to understand his priorities. Shambles sees Mudcat primarily as a vehicle for self-expression, as a place for people to express their creativity and ideas and lyrics and whatnot. As such, he believes Mudcat should orient itself toward the priorities of the people who post messages. And it is true that Mudcat has been that, and has served many people very well as a means of self-expression. I think the majority of us see Mudcat as primarily a place that is oriented toward the reader, rather than toward the person who furnishes information. As such, Mudcat should make the priorities of the readers its primary consideration. It is wonderful that so many people have furnished all this information and creativity, but the reader needs help in finding his way around this maze. That's why we index and title and organize and remove duplicates. We don't do it to offend the originator, and we have no reason to offend the originator. It's not a matter of "personal taste" - it's simply a matter of doing the best we can to help people find their way around, building a roadmap or a highway system so that people can find their way around the 1.47 million messages that have been posted here. Roger's concerns are legitimate - but it's just a matter of choice. The general tip of the scale is that Mudcat is a reader-oriented forum that assists readers in finding information - but still does its best to respect and encourage the free expression of the people who post here. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,MMario Date: 27 Apr 05 - 04:15 PM oh for god's sake Roger! I still await convincing that my concerns about censorship here are unfounded and my suggestions for improvements are too complicated People have been telling you nothing BuT that for months! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 27 Apr 05 - 03:26 PM I never spat! *smile* Seriously though: Roger clearly remains unconvinced by the arguments/logic of myself, WYSIWYG, Wolfgang, Catspaw, jeffp, Gervase and others. We (same names) remain unconvinced by his evidence. Stalemate - might as well settle for the long haul. There is something that Roger alluded to a few days ago on this thread, that would concern me: In response to somebody's pointing out that he (Roger) appears to be alone in holding the views he does, Roger suggested that there are many more dissatisfied members, some of whom have PMed Roger to express their support, but they are afraid to post their views on this thread for fear of being "attacked" as Roger is. If that is so, it would be a shame. I wish such fellow 'catters could find it in themselves to brave an opinion in this thread, posting as GUESTs if necessary; it would be a comfort to Roger, and would provide a better view of the difference of opinions - which right now seems one-sided. Not that our (anyone's) opinions matter terribly, in my view, as this is a privately owned and maintained forum open to the public. But I would still like to know what the views are. George |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Wolfgang Date: 27 Apr 05 - 03:26 PM Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: jeffp - PM Date: 26 Apr 05 - 03:03 PM Do you actually think that nothing has happened in the last 5 1/2 years? Where does it say that Roger sets the rules? Again I ask you: Have you discussed your concerns with Max? If so, what was his response? If not, why not? Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles - PM Date: 26 Apr 05 - 05:03 PM This was the answer that I gave earlier in the thread.... As you [Catspaw] make no public apology for any of your insulting comments in posts here - I see no reason why I should answer any public demand coming from you. So I won't - as it is none of your business. This was what you gave as response to (among others) Jeff's question. Can this be considered - as we all know that Max gave this site to us - and we all can only set a better example by the content of our posts instead of passing judgments on others - as the unknown clones do in brown colour in order not to refresh the thread so that others cannot read their contributions and Flamenco Ted cannot claim an innocent 1000th post - that is censored by a clone imposing his personal taste while Joe claims he cannot see the censorship - an honest response to Jeff - when you yourself shortly after that gave him a completely different reason as response - just as Xander the Troyan gave completely different opinions under his second handle as Alex the Greek in the same thread ? Wolfgang (hoping that his intention on the 27 Apr 05 - 05:11 AM post is now clear enough) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 05 - 02:42 PM Gervase We could always start up on hunting with dogs again - if you like. But all I am saying is that I am not prepared to inflict a personal spat with El Greco on the forum. I still await convincing that my concerns about censorship here are unfounded and my suggestions for improvements are too complicated. Logic, reason and evidence may do this - but personal judgements will not. Wolfgang I have found over the years that you have spoken a lot of sense. I have not found that to be true much lately - and your last post post has completely baffled me. Perhaps this will baffle you in return? The questions asked were simple repetitions of the original poster's repetition after I had provided this poster with their answer. Are you suggesting that I won't be considered as honest until I provide a different answer to exactly the same repeated questions? Whoever is asking - I am being asked to post publicly - a response to a private exchange. I have given my reasons for not being prepared to do this - can this finally be respected? Is is now clear that the fact that Catspaw owes our forum many apolgies is not a justification or a condition from me - for the lack of a reply to anyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Apr 05 - 01:13 PM Gee, we're at 827 posts, and I'll wager that nothing is going to stop this thread until it makes 1,000. I'm sure that Shambles would like to fill the rest of this thread with copy-pastes of the Wit and Wisdom of Joe Offer. I'll bet he could post the same quotes two or three times in the same thread, for that matter - since people can break threads into pages now, perhaps it's fair to make sure that the copy-pastes occur on each page? I'd like to propose that we get away from all this negativity. Hey, we could continue talking about the Trojan Wars (is that about condoms?) and talk about something more uplifting (Helen's brassiere?) So, do you think Helen would like it if we gave her that big horse to ride? Anyhow, I have to say that I liked the movie, and I don't care what the critics say about it. Troy, that is. I like Mudcat, and don't care what the critics say about it. Shambles, that is. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Wolfgang Date: 27 Apr 05 - 11:58 AM OK, this time just for a change you seem to have given an honest response, Shambles, to my last post. For responding to others that you do not respond to them because Catspaw has not apologised to you does not seem to have been your honest response. Or was it? Which Shambles shall we take by his word, the one who tells others he will not respond to their question because Catspaw has not yet apologised to him or the one who tells us whatever passes between me and any other party - will remain private? Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Gervase Date: 27 Apr 05 - 07:25 AM Aw, c'mon Rog - only another 179 to go. At current rates, you'll have that done by this evening! And, boy, won't there be an almighty and undignified scramble to claim the 1000th post? though it really should be Joe who does it - in brown text, of course! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 27 Apr 05 - 06:33 AM 8 Good - I agree about not inflicting this gripe on others. I hope this can also apply to the rest of the arguments. I PMed you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 27 Apr 05 - 06:22 AM You did not wait until April 1st this year - so please go ahead but I am not too sure that anyone will notice. I am beginning to think that perhaps Xander is the serious one and invented El Greko - as the joke. Xander in fact - spoke a lot more sense. This is the end of the Trojan wars - if you wish to continue this persoal spat - please do so via PMs. There is no need to inflict this upon others and I shall ignore any further public provocation from you (or Xander). |