 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Anastasia Date: 21 Apr 05 - 09:17 AM Two questions, The Shambles: What percentage of your day is taken up on tyhis subject? Have you not got anything better to do? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Giok Date: 21 Apr 05 - 09:09 AM What I think would open a few peoples' eyes is for Joe, and other clones to publish the PMs they get complaining about threads and their contents [Minus the senders name of course]. I don't know for sure but I would guess that they amount to more than a hill of beans, so he's getting pressure from both sides. Then there's the fact that you have a name and a PM system to use as a means of contacting moderators. Many sites don't give names or contact details, and you've got to like it or lump it. What Spaw says is spot on, remember that the best thing about banging your head off a brick wall is when you stop. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 21 Apr 05 - 07:56 AM If you do not trust and respect the people who do the administrative work here, why in the world do you spend your time here? I certainly did have that trust and respect. That is one reason why I have contributed so positively to our forum for so long and intend to try to continue to do so. But this was when it was accepted that it was a matter for all the community to encourage but not judge the worth of the invited contributions of the public. Not for our administrators to sit in judgement on every nit-picking aspect of these contributions - from the title chosen to the spelling used - and then demand our trust and respect for this. It now seems that posters are told by the administrators that if they don't trust the (anonymous) administrators - they should go away! When the tail starts to wag the dog - perhaps it is time that those administrators - who so obviously do not now trust and respect (or even accept) the people who Max has invited to post here (without all these new rules) - were asked to spend their time elswhere and leave the rest of us in peace? In truth - it may be difficult for any of us to respect and trust the occasional extreme contribution. But as their is no way to prevent such things from being posted (except by being set and following a good example and never responding in kind) - we can perhaps just leave it to Max's personal judgement - if he wishes it to remain on his site? As to the other now routine 'tinkering' with thread titles etc. It may be accepted that the reasoning behind these may be well-intentioned. But as a general rule and in order to show respect and trust - cannot it be that such changes are only undertaken with the poster's consent and never have a fellow poster's judgment imposed upon it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 21 Apr 05 - 07:24 AM The imagery is too strong, Spaw, I can't resist a cheap ditty - To the tune of "Beware of the bite of the underdog": Beware of the suck of the aardvark, His snout is lethal and too dangerous by far. Beware of the suck of the aardvark, He'll suck your logic and he'll leave you all ga-ga. Too late now to change him or to teach him Or try common sense to feed him piece by piece. For life Joe can be very capricious, And the suck of the aardvark is vicious. And so the time will come around when in details you will drown And that's the time when you find against your wishes All you've achieved is to disturb your own peace. Ta-tarararah-boom-boom! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 21 Apr 05 - 06:57 AM Joe....As a friend......I know what you are trying to do and I certainly understand the frustration tinged with hope that you feel when trying to discuss anything with Shambles. You just know you'll get through somehow, but it never happens. Roger takes every item, breaks it into 37 pieces, throws 22 pieces away, rephrases the rest, and then puts it back together upside down and sideways until it can fit into his world. This is a lot like trying to teach an aardvark table manners........very cool if you could do it, but a complete waste of time because it just won't happen. No one knows why the aardvark can't learn manners even after the best efforts by everyone to show him. Perhaps he's stupid or perhaps he just can't deal with his paws which lack opposable thumbs. At the end of the day the aardvark doesn't care but you are a basket case and the fault of that belongs to you. Why in the hell are you trying to teach an aardvark table manners? Look Joe, I've been trying to say this over and over, but as a mod anywhere else, you are already giving WAY too many explanations. Stop. Do what you have to do and skip the comments. Most people won't notice and most won't care. To any but the most pigheaded, it's obvious that this place is looser than Grannie's bloomers as far as moderation or censorship goes. Most forums would never tolerate a thread like this one. Most would have zapped Shambles long ago. I'm glad we haven't and that The 'Cat is as loose as it is but everything has a limit somewhere and one thing is certain...this thread and this non-discussion discussion has gone on far too long. QUIT FUCKIN' WITH THE AARDVARK!It reached the point long ago where it's obvious that Roger will accept no explanation that doesn't fit in Roger's World and the more you try the more he drags up the same things over and over. He himself has refused to answer the basic questions asked of him by myself and other members, such as "What did Max tell you?" Or, "Have you ever discussed this with Max and if so when?" After all Joe, Max is the only one he would have to listen to and you and I both know that he won't do that either. So let him be the usual Ramblin' Shambles and write his tripe to his heart's content. You are beginning to look foolish for even trying to answer his imagined concerns. Fuck him. Well, don't go that far literally, but it's time to end this now!If you feel you must have a windmill, I suggest the aardvark and table manners. Your odds are better. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 21 Apr 05 - 05:23 AM I don't know about anybody else on Mudcat, but I'm f***ing fed up with this infantile sqabbling, and I'm surprised that people some of whom should know better are feeding the flames. All that is happening is people are giving each other ammunition to fire back in parenthesis and italics, what a futile waste of band width!! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 21 Apr 05 - 02:54 AM The following was inserted into this thread on : 20 Feb 03 - 09:25 PM. Cut and paste prohibitions I also stated that anonymous posting has become a problem, and I am seeking a solution. I asked that our Guests solve the problem themselves by simply using a consistent name and starting no more than one non-music thread per day. Currently, there is no policy on this. We would like people to use common sense and common courtesy, but we have a few people who don't seem to understand those concepts. Max and Jeff and I have never had any thought of deleting old threads, BS or Non-BS. We have occasionally had problems with people refreshing contentious old threads for the purpose of opening old wounds, so I have closed (but not deleted) a number of old threads, so that new messages cannot be posted. We also reserve the right to delete threads that appear to have been started simply for the purpose of attacking individuals or causing trouble. We do delete threads occasionally, but as seldom as we can. -Joe Offer- Since then - things would appear to have changed (and for the worse). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 21 Apr 05 - 02:40 AM Roger said: "Of course none of the reactive editing action does PREVENT any of this." That is a fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 21 Apr 05 - 02:36 AM Joe was that last post your view - or is it now official Mudcat policy to judge fellow posters of being mentally ill? For it is difficult to tell one view from the other. Are they now the same? I am sure that if you had not been forced to post as a guest - these same comments would have been inserted as a (brown) editing comment. Perhaps you now consider that - all the posters that you feel free to impose editing action upon - are mentally ill and that you know best what they were trying to say and can speak for them? I am suggesting that you ask these members of the community first - nothing too complicated or mentally unstable in that suggestion - is there? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Joe Offer Date: 20 Apr 05 - 10:30 PM Calm down, Shambles. Now you're getting hysterical. I think you're beginning to see JoeClones descending upon your house in black U.N. helicopters, about to drag you forcibly into the One World Order by clicking their "delete" buttons at you. You know, maybe you're right.....
To the funny farm where life is beautiful And I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats And they're coming to take me away.... It's OK, Shambles. Just relax while we put this little jacket on you. See? Isn't it a nice jacket... -Dr. Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Speaker Date: 20 Apr 05 - 08:54 PM Move to censor that post. Can't be having recipies on a censorship thread... (.. really, what's the world coming to...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 20 Apr 05 - 08:11 PM heloo, waht you favoiurit sort of cheese then? i like that orange cheese [i forgot wahts called], and that other one= that round one, like a ball, some times i eat bacon and cheese sand witches. i dont like that spreading cheese much. i got a ricipe= get mash popato, 1 tin of tuna, in a dish= mix it up, put cheese on top, and pt it ubder your grill, and you could put tomatoes on it as well, try it its really nice, and good for you as well. you could put black pepper as well if you want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 20 Apr 05 - 03:20 PM Roger said: "Of course none of the reactive editing action does PREVENT any of this." This is a (deliberate?) misinterpretation of what Joe said, which was: "We wish to remove racism, personal attacks, and Spam from the Forum when we do that (judiciously)." (italics Joe's) Notice that Joe said, "remove," while Roger said, "prevent." Big difference there. Try to be honest, Roger. If you can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:58 PM Music on the Gold Coast (Queensland Australia) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:53 PM Mudcat problem (Fun Web Products) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:50 PM OLD TIME MUSIC IN THE PARK (UK)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:42 PM Thanks for conventionally posting so as the refresh the thread again. Although I suspect this was not through choice..... No, we're not going to document and explain and defend the deletion of offensive messages and the closing of combative threads, as you seem to imply we should. We wish to remove racism, personal attacks, and Spam from the Forum when we do that (judiciously). Documenting those removals would simply amplify and advertise the very problems we wish to eliminate or contain. There is no implication in my suggestion - it is very clear. I will leave others to judge your response and question if anyone else was consulted before you made it and spke on their behalf. The same old rubbish is wheeled out again - about preventing racism and protecting us from personal attacks - althought it is never explained who protects us from those that - you, your anonymous volunteers and their supporters indulge in and set the example of. Of course none of the reactive editing action does PREVENT any of this. It is the justification given for the general and now routine tinkering with and imposition on - the contributions of fellow posters without their knowledge or permission. Perhaps if all these reactive racism and personal attack editing actions were made clear for all of the community to see - these would be seen by them to be so few - as to question if all these anonymous volunteers could really be justified? Those who (for their own ends) would wish to rule us - have always found that the best way to stay in power - is to invent an outside enemy - for them to protact us from. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Joe Offer Date: 20 Apr 05 - 01:33 PM You know, Shambles, Editorial comments ARE posted for most of the significant editorial actions. If you want evidence, do a search for "attempt to avoid splitting" or "multiple threads combined." We don't bother to document minor, obvious corrections or the deletion of duplicate messages - but we do document those that might cause confusion. We don't document thread title changes because the first two messages usually show what the original thread title was, if it has been changed. You have to look at the first TWO messages - not just one, like you did in an earlier message in this thread. No, we're not going to document and explain and defend the deletion of offensive messages and the closing of combative threads, as you seem to imply we should. We wish to remove racism, personal attacks, and Spam from the Forum when we do that (judiciously). Documenting those removals would simply amplify and advertise the very problems we wish to eliminate or contain. You know, this is like teaching my kid Algebra. I keep thinking if I keep explaining things clearly and calmly and logically, that the kid and Shambles will finally get it - but they never do. They keep going back to the same twisted logic, every time. And I still have another whole year of Algebra to teach. -Joe Offer- 655, Ted? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 20 Apr 05 - 11:55 AM It was looking as if we may get there Ted - but sadly Joe has decided to use his 'special powers' to continue to post but not refresh the thread. Yes, I did consider your proposal, Shambles - and I gave a thoughtful, well-reasoned response on more than one occasion. Now, can you find other people who will give thoughtful, well-reasoned responses in support of your proposal? I suspect not publicly - for they may not wish to expose themselves to the following sort of public thoughtful, well-reasoned response from you. 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- On the other hand, since we operate under a general atmosphere of trust and respect, why should we be required to document our every action as if we were under suspicion of committing a felony? Joe it is clear that although you feel qualified to sit in often heavy judgement upon your fellow posters - you do not feel that you should be judged youself. It has become clear over time that you do not like to be judged - so why would you think that any of your fellow posters like to have your judgement - and the judgement of anonymous volunteers - imposed upon them any more than you would? Yes I do think that you and your band of volunteers should be expected to be accountable to the rest of this community - just as the rest of the community are expected (by you) to be accountable. For the main and simple reason that when public defence of all this judgement and secret measures are given by you on our forum - to a poster who may not have the best interests of our community at heart - I would like to be able to honestly and fully support this defence.........Sadly I find myself in agreement with the many logical arguments that these "trouble-makers" express and I find myself embarrassed at the bullying and strange reasoning that forms to corner stone of this defence. Joe what is so very complicated about ensuring that an editing comment is always present - to indicate when and why editing action was imposed upon the invited contributions of a fellow contributor to our coumminity? Posters do post defend the current system and state that the levels of censorship are 'about right'. However, I am not sure how this can be stated with much basis in reality - if these posters are not aware of what the true level of censorship is. So I have tried here to demonstrate and evidence what the true level is. When ALL the community can see when ALL editing action has been imposed - they will be a better position to judge - whether this is acceptable or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Paco Rabanne Date: 20 Apr 05 - 04:09 AM Well deduced Shambles,I am after the 7ooth post.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 20 Apr 05 - 02:31 AM What you propose is a very complicated process for approval of what is essentially a non-issue for most of us. There is nothing at all complicated in being open. On what basis do you maintain that censorship on our forum (with 600+ posts on the subject in this thread alone and the countless others) is a non-issue for most of us'? It rather depends of what the question is. Do you feel that you speak for 'most of us' here. And if you do - do you think that is enough? Should not you be really concerned about ALL of 'us'? Censorship is thought very much an issue for you and your volunteers - who feel qualified to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters - so why do you think it should it be any less of an issue for most Mudcatters who are subject to it? If there is nothing to hide - why make it look as if there is? Joe what I publicly propose to our open forum here and you dismiss - is a very modest and sensible move for many reasons - will you at least consider it?
No, we have nothing to hide. What makes you think we have any reason to hide anything? Why would any of us bother to hide the editorial work we do? On the other hand, since we operate under a general atmosphere of trust and respect, why should we be required to document our every action as if we were under suspicion of committing a felony? Our editorial actions are tracked by Mudcat software and reviewed and controlled by Max, Jeff, and Joe - isn't that enough? Should I be compelled to post a lengthy public explanation of every HTML correction I make, every line break I add? Must I be required to post full details and defense of every personal attack, spam message, and racist post deletion I make? And if I were to do that, would it make sense? If you do not trust and respect the people who do the administrative work here, why in the world do you spend your time here? I have to admit that there's something addictive here - something that drives me to respond to Shambles, against my better judgment. To me, my counter-arguments always seem to compelling, so logical, so satisfying, so polite... I feel so sure I'm going to win this game of chess, sooner or later. I'm just sure that one day Shambles is going to admit that I am absolutely brilliant. And then Shambles short-circuits the laws of logic and starts everything all over again. Oh, well. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Apr 05 - 05:23 PM Shambles, to determing the difference between "I" and "we" requires a modicum of intelligence. "I" is singular and refers to the speaker. "We" is plural, and refers to the speaker and various others, explained in the context when necessary. This is not an issue here, and never has been. Please don't try to make it into one. As for this convoluted sentence: - I think I've answered it adequately, countless times before. What you propose is a very complicated process for approval of what is essentially a non-issue for most of us. Editorial actions ARE controlled - by Max, Jeff, and Joe. If you question an editorial judgment, consult with me. I am the one responsible for explaining that judgment. If we make an objectionable message disappear, we are not going to discuss that deletion publicly, but we are generally willing to answer private questions. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 19 Apr 05 - 04:29 PM Joe first I should say that I do appreciate the conventional nature of your last contribution. The fact that it was posted honestly - so that the thread is refreshed - is refreshing. Even such a small move back to one where posters behave and are treated equally and are shown respect and encouraged to show mutual respect - is to be welcomed. I am still confused over the use of 'I' and 'we' and when your personal view begins and when this stops. I'm sorry, but I cannot take the time to investigate like this every time Shambles suspects that there has been an editorial action. The answer to this is pretty easy. You either don't impose any at all. Or if 'you' or 'we' do feel that ANY editing action is required - (preferably consulting the originator first) - this is always made clear by an editorial comment - that makes it clear that editing action has been imposed and the details of who judged this was required and the reasons why? This is what I mean by making it open. If there is nothing to hide - why make it look as if there is? If there is no brown writing - we will all know that no editing action has been undertaken. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Apr 05 - 03:14 PM Oh, that's what Ted was trying to pull. I shoulda known. Very astute, Shambles. As for Shambles' latest tack, he appears to assume that all editing is wrong, that every letter typed by a Mudcatter is sacrorosanct and must not be changed without the typist's permission. I will agree with him with regards to the sanctity of the text of individual messages, and we follow fairly strict procedures in how we edit messages. If a message violates the rules of conduct stated in the FAQ, we deal with that message in whatever way makes sense at the time. The volunteers who delete or edit messages that violate rules are required to report their actions to Max, Jeff, or Joe for review. Such actions are relatively rare - Max, Jeff, and Joe are usually the ones who handle them, but the volunteers deal with them in certain obvious situations. If you have questions about any of these actions, contact me privately - I'm the one who usually handles public contact - or you can contact Max or Jeff privately. We rarely discuss specific editing actions like this in public, because that just serves to advertise the problem we are trying to eliminate. And no, if somebody posts a personal attack or spam or a racist message, I'm not going to ask his or her permission to remove that message. Most message editing actions aren't for conduct problems, however - they're simple things, like correcting spelling, format, HTML, or links; or perhaps adding the songwriter's name to lyrics. While we are also a social community and a forum for expression, Mudcat was originally and is still primarily a music information resource, and it is important that the information here is correct. If we were dealing with ten messages a day, perhaps it would be nice to ask a poster if I could correct his HTML or add a songwriter name to the lyrics he posted, but we have thousands of messages posted every day, and that sort of process would be cumbersome. Here's a good example - Wolfgang's 1997 post of The King of Ballyhooley. I did significant editing of this thread yesterday. There were some mistakes and a missing line in Wolfgang's post, but his incomplete lyrics were incorporated into the Digital Tradition as he posted them. Cleod posted corrections in separate threads in 1998 and 1998, and the threads were missed and the corrections were not incorporated into the lyrics. I moved Cleod's two correction messages into the original lyrics thread, and incorporated the corrections (in bold typeface) into Wolfgang's original lyrics. I posted a message asking for additional corrections and for source information, and copy-pasted Malcolm's tune information from another thread. I crosslinked the other threads on the song, and closed them so that people would post to the main lyrics thread and not split the discussion. Finally, I changed the title of Wolfgang's thread from Lyr ADD to DT Correction, since the primary purpose of the thread is not to correct the Digital Tradition entry. I suppose I could have asked Wolfgang for permission to do the lyrics correction and the thread title change and the renaming of his message tile category, but I'm sure he wouldn't object. Cleod hasn't posted since 2000, so it would be difficult to contact him/her for permission to combine the two one-message correction threads with the original lyrics thread. It would also be a cumbersome process to contact the originators and posters from the two closed request threads, to obtain their permission to close and redirect "their" threads. In actuality, if we had to get permission to do this sort of editing, we it would be just too complicated; and we wouldn't do it. I think that my editing work has resulted in a thread that gives a good body of information about the song. It took a lot of work to put all that together, but I think the result is valuable - and I think that it is highly unlikely that any of the posters involved will object to the editing. If they have objections, they are free to contact me. Note that the text of the messages involves is intact - except that corrections were added to Wolfgang's lyrics in bold type. It took me an hour or so to do the editing work on these threads. I think we had seven threads on the song when I started, and I moved things around and condensed them to three. The one primary thread covering all the information we have collected on the song, so I closed the other two so we wouldn't split the discussion. In this situation and in most editing situations, the process involves indexing and linking information so that is is more useful to our Mudcat community and to outside users. The information itself is rarely changed, although it may be retitled or augmented. Please note that I am the only one who does this sort of thread consolidation. Max and Jeff do the higher-level technical stuff, but this project of indexing and consolidating information is mostly my bailiwick. The JoeClone volunteers handle little things here and there, but they do major projects like this only under direct supervision. As for the thread title change Shambles supected, music for 2nd fiddle (or banjo), I checked with Jeff and he examined the thread - as I suspected, the thread title was not edited or changed. It is exactly what the thread originator posted. I'm sorry, but I cannot take the time to investigate like this every time Shambles suspects that there has been an editorial action. I'll be happy answer questions from posters about their own messages, or from thread originators about the change of title of the threads they originated. -Joe Offer- #650, Ted! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 19 Apr 05 - 12:49 PM No that won't work. With Joe's cunning plan to prevent you - by posting but not refreshing the thread - there is not much chance of you being able to claim the 700th post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Paco Rabanne Date: 19 Apr 05 - 11:35 AM To the top with you! You know The Shambles is right! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 19 Apr 05 - 05:06 AM You will find a fine joke from Brucie - comparing the various methods of the CIA, NYPD and the FBI - by clicking the following link. Gallery of Mudcat Quotations |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 19 Apr 05 - 03:09 AM Message titles can be changed to anything the poster wishes, and I wish more people would take advantage of that feature - especially when posting lyrics (put ADD: plus the song title). -Joe Offer- A wish is just that.....It is not a command or a requirement. When you have led a horse to water - it is up to the horse whether they choose to drink or not. Now on our forum - it sometime seems - that the poor old horses head is being forced under the water. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 19 Apr 05 - 02:26 AM Yes - despite the fact that the thread has not been refreshed - there has been yet another response. In the instance you cite, the thread title does not match the title of the first message, but it matches the title of the second one. It could well be that the thread originator changed the title of the introductory message. Message titles can be changed to anything the poster wishes, and I wish more people would take advantage of that feature - especially when posting lyrics (put ADD: plus the song title). It may well be this possibility but was this in fact the case? The use of the brackets - tends to suggest that it was not..... As it was a guest - it was certainly the case that they were PMd and asked it they agreed to any change first. If they wish to be helpful - perhaps our volunteers could just try to provide the answers to the requests - rather than tinkering and imposing titles changes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 18 Apr 05 - 03:05 PM http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=80364&messages=2 Yet another change without the originator's knowledge or agreement. 'Or banjo' indeed......Banjo players never play second fiddle to anyone.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 18 Apr 05 - 10:04 AM No - nobody reads this stuff - or ever posts to refresh it. And the only one that does read this stuff makes sure that when he does post - he does not refresh the thread..*Smiles*...Again the following was inserted as an editing comment and you may have missed it. I've answered that one already, Shambles. Threads are community property, not the property of the originator. Thread name changes are made for the good of the community, to help people know what's inside a thread. The volunteer who changed the "Roman" thread went too far, so the change was corrected. As far as I can determine, no harm was done except for the ruffling of a few Shamblesfeathers. Nobody else seemed to care. Therefore, I figure it must not be something worth worrying about. -Joe Offer- Joe I make no claim that threads and thread titles are the property of the originator - but they are not your property either are they? But threads and thread titles are also not the property of anonymous volunteers to impose changes upon when they wish - no matter how noble their aims might be. 1. If these threads and thread titles are community property and you say that any proposed changes are for the good of the community - is there any good reason why the originator would not be prepared to agree to any proposed change and why these equally valid members of the community should not be first asked? 2. If these threads and thread titles are community property and you say that any proposed changes are for the good of the community - should any changes be imposed upon invited contributions - without this prior agreement from these equally valid members of the community? What is worth worrying about is that this errant but still 'trusted' anonymous volunteer (who went too far) was worried enough to impose this change upon a thread title (for the good of the community)- but without showing the respect of asking the member of the community who chose the title - if they were in agreement. 3. Joe - in exactly what respect do you consider that this anonymous volunteer go 'went too far' resulting in the thread title having to to be corrected and changed-back? For you would seem to be holding a double standard of publicly supporting (or of excusing) both positions at the same time. On a technical point - I notice that the imposed title change is still showing on the individual posts in that thread...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,pinion Date: 18 Apr 05 - 03:41 AM Nobody reads this stuff anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 17 Apr 05 - 08:08 PM Shambles-- God forbid if anyone should have a fresh thought-- to be continuing to reflect on a matter and actually progress to a better thought-- that it should be posted as a suggestion others might consider! Susan - that is all - and exactly what - I have been trying to do now for the past 4 years! You have seen all the hysterical reactions to these fairly modest suggestions of mine - (from the usual suspects and have even taken part) - so you should not be too surprised at any less than positive reception now given to your opinion expressed honestly on a discussion forum. Perhaps you should follow the example of others here and start-up another membership and say the same things under a different name? That and posting (and deleting) anonymously - now seems to be acceptable on our forum. Or 'back-door' posting in way that will not refresh the thread (but that is not an option open to all Mudcatters)? Or you could resist the temptation to post at all to a thread that is not to your taste and find another one that may be? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 17 Apr 05 - 07:47 PM Joe Offer says here (in brown writing inserted into an existing post here as an editing comment in order to make his usual excuses - but not to refresh this thread and which you may have missed seeing). When mistakes are made, they will be corrected. That seems to be an adequate solution. It's well-nigh impossible to anticipate and prevent every mistake and miscommunication. Since no lives are at stake here, an occasional after-the-fact correction seems to be the appropriate remedy. Is it time for a complete review all of the current censorship and to change it from something that threatens to divide Mudcatters - to something more fair, open and with a clear objective that all posters can support equally? Joe we are agreed that no lives are at stake here. So in order to prevent all the volunteer's mistakes and miscommunications that I have been bringing attention to - and you have been providing the same excuses for - could the poster's agreement be first sought before any change is imposed by you or your anonymous volunteers, upon the invited contribution of fellow posters?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 05 - 04:37 PM I'd like to propose people just leave this thread (and the other Censorship Proposal one) to Roger as his blog on what censorship he sees going on. He seems to like to document it. Why not? And why do others need to comment? ~S~ No wysiwyg your proposal was as I previously stated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Apr 05 - 04:31 PM My wonderful idea was basically that one approach would be to not argue with what is basically a personal journal. Regarding arrogance, I aspire to someday merit that description, but I am not there quite yet. ;~) ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 17 Apr 05 - 12:53 PM Baiting? Just pointing out your arrogance. Call it what you will. I see you have posted yet again to this thread, even after your wonderful idea that we should all stop. Real conviction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Apr 05 - 11:15 AM LOL. Shambles-- God forbid if anyone should have a fresh thought-- to be continuing to reflect on a matter and actually progress to a better thought-- that it should be posted as a suggestion others might consider! Guest baiting me again-- Oy, to be sure-- off with my head! :~) ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 17 Apr 05 - 07:36 AM Context is important. But whatever the context - a threat (from our trusted volunteers) - still remains a threat. Abusive personal attacks upon fellow posters from our trusted volunteers remain abusive persoanal attacks - whatever provocation is claimed. If it is possible for the majority of posters to ignore or not to respond in kind to obvious provocation - it should be possible for our trusted volunteers to also set this example. Anonymous posting is thought a problem by our anonymous volunteers - but according to the new Mudcat logic - anonymous deleting by them upon fellow posters - is not. It is now accepted that it was WRONG for the anonymous volunteer to change the Romans title as Joe Offer has now decided to change it back. What steps are being taken to ensure that this particular anonymous and out-of-control - but still trusted volunteer - does not behave WRONGLY again? Is it time for a complete review all of the current censorship and to change it from something that threatens to divide Mudcatters - to something more fair, open and with a clear objective that all posters can support equally?
As for my statements that are quoted out of context years after I made them, I have no reason to even bother to defend myself. Shambles views my statement as a threat. I see it as a strongly-worded explanation to a repeat offender of the consequences of noncompliance with our prohibition against lengthy non-music copy-pastes. It was a serious problem at the time, so a strong response was appropriate. It seems ludicrous to wait until now to question my two-year-old statement, and certainly unfair to quote me out of context. Maybe I should be happy that Shambles can find nothing but the distant past to complain about. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 16 Apr 05 - 04:21 PM wysiwyg priceless! Did you really need to post to this thread to advise everyone else to stop posting? Would you ever take a bloody great step back and stop telling us what to do, how to think and what we mean. It is irritating in the extreme. Your arrogance is boundless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles 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
The "Romans" thread should not have been renamed. I changed it back. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 15 Apr 05 - 07:15 PM I'd like to propose people just leave this thread (and the other Censorship Proposal one) to Roger as his blog on what censorship he sees going on. He seems to like to document it. Why not? And why do others need to comment? Why not indeed? And perhaps Susan you could explain why you can't just leave this thread? And why you not only still need to post to refresh it - but question why others should need to comment and propose that THEY don't? .....For you should know the answer? Well it could be worse. I could take-up another membership, post under a different name and start a thread expressing a view - that was the complete opposite to the one that I actually held....That would appear now to be more acceptable form of freedom of expression on our forum - than expressing and evidencing a view that you actually and honestly held. At least with me - I do exactly what it says that I do on the tin - and you don't have to open the tin. I would like to propose too. .....Susan - will you marry me? I would also propose that perhaps all the now routine censorship be confined only to one thread.....(weak attempts at humour - inserted for the benefit of Wolfgang)? *Smiles* 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: wysiwyg Date: 15 Apr 05 - 01:13 PM I'd like to propose people just leave this thread (and the other Censorship Proposal one) to Roger as his blog on what censorship he sees going on. He seems to like to document it. Why not? And why do others need to comment? ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 15 Apr 05 - 01:08 PM your posting that link seems to be in direct contradiction of your most recent post on that thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 15 Apr 05 - 12:52 PM Mudcat nastiness |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: John MacKenzie Date: 14 Apr 05 - 02:42 PM It's behind you!! G.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST Date: 14 Apr 05 - 02:18 PM Oh yes there is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: George Papavgeris Date: 14 Apr 05 - 02:11 PM Oh, no, there isn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 14 Apr 05 - 02:03 PM Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: El Greko - PM Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:36 AM I happen to have met all three "bullies", GUEST, and my opinion is radically different to yours; I found them to be fair, erudite, logical and open-minded. But hey, the world is big enough for us to have different opinions, so no problem. Perhaps there IS now - a real problem? Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: flamenco ted - PM Date: 07 Apr 05 - 08:45 AM The Shambles is correct as usual.Nasty posts have stopped a lot of people I know from posting here anymore. I know they are reading, because we talk about various threads in the pub on a weekend. But they sure ain't going to post for fear of getting their heads bitten off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Wolfgang Date: 14 Apr 05 - 09:09 AM Shambles, how does it come you sound so serious when trying to make a funny post and so funny when trying to make a serious post? Wolfgang |