BS: Censorship on Mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:11 AM

Not the entire place Martin..........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 10:12 PM

Yes, there fucking is.

This place is getting censored more than ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: jpk
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:46 PM

and may god bless   see aint no censor's here

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 03:56 PM

a boy's gotta have a hobby to help keep him off the streets.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 02:04 PM

Well, I'm not really involved in the discussion at the present time. Shambles just copy-pastes excerpts from what I've said in the past, and then replies to the excerpts.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 12:56 PM

Perhaps Mr. Joe and Mr. Shambles might consider working out their differences privately from this point forward? How's that for a "proposal"?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 12:54 PM

Joe Offer.... known to dispense goodwill, help and gentle guidance in a common sense way which I for one am missing very much....

What changed??

Noreen - I wish I knew and could answer that one.

The example that was set then - was one of friendly inclusivness and tolerance - which I supported 100%..........

Now it would appear that you either accept the 'goodwill, 'help', 'gentle guidance' and 'common sense' - that Joe and his anonyonous volunteers will impose upon you - OR ELSE you are expected to or told - to go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 12:24 PM

Ted, I'll crucify the JoeClone who would dare to delete your 7200th post - but I have to warn you that you have a very offensive apostrophe in your 09:01 AM post in this thread.

The correct expresssion is:

Stand by for its deletion.

-Joe Offer, pedantically-

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:43 AM

Spaw is ketchup a good alias? You do know that it is sometimes necessary to bang ketchup hard on the arse to get it to work don't you?
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:13 AM

Good catches, Noreen and Wolfgang. Thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:01 AM

I've just nicked the 7200th post on MOABS thread. Stand by for it's deletion.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 08:48 AM

Joe Offer's reaction (also in 1999) to Shambles saying goodbye to Mudcat

My opinion is that all this verbiage serves to make matters worse. We need to get back to talking about music and good times...I hope you come back. You're a good guy.

When looking back, 1999 seems like paradise.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:36 AM

I've just stumbled across the following:

Subject: JOE OFFER Come Back To Us, All Is Forgiven
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 99 - 04:03 AM

Joe Offer.... known to dispense goodwill, help and gentle guidance in a common sense way which I for one am missing very much....

What changed??

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 03:43 PM

That's got me thinking of the sig Richard Robinson (a regular on uk.music.folk amongst other things) uses:

"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 03:30 PM

No, no, no! It's the rutabagas. And it always was. Censor that if you dare.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 10:06 AM

Wolfgang, I guess by "blind defence", shambles means that I have, in the past, worked under Joe as a clone (although admittedly there have been changes such as the addition to close a thread since then). And that I have programmed similar moderation facilities into other message boards...

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:53 AM

As always the facts do not always support the blind defence of all aspects of the current 'system'. (Shambles)

Who does that? And what has that sentence to do with Jon's post?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:52 AM

The complete quote was.

That is as good an excuse of avoiding addressing important issues - as there is. Nothing is stopping you from doing a better job of conducting the debate - rather than being content to repeatedly post - simply to try to sabotage any debate - by only rubbishing the advocate.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:41 AM

Subject: RE: Deleted post
From: GUEST,unrepentant clone - PM
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 12:03 PM

Ad-I deleted it. It was only 15 minutes after it had been posted, and I was not sure anyone else had even seen it. It was posted in the music threads, was obviously copied and pasted, and not only had no commentary to explain why you posted it, it was offensive and inflammatory.

Still, I should have left a note saying what I had done and why. I had a phone call and totally forgot. Apologies for that.

We allow a lot of non-music discussion on lots of things, but it just struck me as an attempt to fan flames. That is only the 2nd post I have deleted in several months. Obviously, this volunteer moderator game is not an exact science.

The whole thread -

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=69253&messages=88

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:37 AM

only rubbishing the advocate
You are doing that job, I only comment it.

Flat, revolving? Huh? Two completely independent concepts. Speaking about the earth revolving makes really a bad job out of trying to demonstrate that the earth is flat.

Shambles, you took me to task for introducing a bit of humour into this thread. The comical relief introduced by your posts like the one above comes more often.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:22 AM

The problem is that the way the volunteer system works, you have to be logged on as a member to use the system. In other words, all volunteers are people who use a consistant name or handle for their posts at Mudcat.

As always the facts do not always support the blind defence of all aspects of the current 'system'. For that is not the case when in order to protect their identity after a 'logged-on' anonymous volunteer had imposed and deleted a posters's entire thread - the anonymous volunteer then posts as a guest - to defend their action (Using - Guest Unrepentant Clone). Actions like this could easily be seen as flaunting this trusted position and taunting lesser untrusted posters from this anonymous role.

But these nit-picking details are not really the point as anonymous posting has hardly been generally popular in the past history of our forum - has it? Why would anonymous posting be thought to be generally any more acceptable now.

How can the rest of ordinary (untrusted) Mudcatters be said (by Joe Offer) to have been shown to place their trust in any volunteer whose identity in unknown and intentinally withheld from them?

As it is divisive - perhaps it is time that volunteers were given the choice of being known ( as to their credit, many are quite prepared to be) or of not being a volunteer?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:11 AM

Early each day at the MudCat Cafe
The little old poster he comes.
In his own special way to the people he calls,
"Come, buy my bags, fall you crumbs.
Come feed the trolls, show them you care
And you'll be sorry you do.
Their egos are hungry,
Their lives are so bare;
All it takes is time taken from you."
Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag,
Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag.
"Feed the trolls," that's what he cries,
All through the web, his posts fill the wires.
All around the world, the lists and the forums
are spammed as he sells his wares.
Although you can't see them, you know trolls are smiling
Each time someone shows that he cares.
Still his words, repeat though they're few,
Listen, listen, he's calling to you:
"Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag,
Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag."

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:00 AM

The bad thing is that some real points that could be dabated get lost in that muddled approach. Even a good cause can be lost with a bad advocate.

That is as good an excuse of avoiding addressing important issues - as there is. Nothing is stopping you from doing a better job of conducting the debate - rather than being content to repeatedly post - simply to try to sabotage any debate - by only rubbishing the advocate.

No matter how many posters contribute only to confirm that the Madcat World is flat - and how bad a job I may make of demonstrating that it is not flat. The fact is that the good old earth (on which the Madcat World rigidly remains seated) still insists on revolving.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:22 AM

The bad thing is that some real points that could be dabated get lost in that muddled approach. Even a good cause can be lost with a bad advocate.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:07 AM

Wow.......Is that what those posts mean? I'm not being sarcastic here at all. Quite sincerely I tell you that I had no idea what he was talking about as I get lost in the twisted verbage. Jon, I have read your explanation several times and I'm willing to accept your answer on faith because I cannot make hide nor hair of the quote from Shambles.......so your explanation works for me.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 06:36 AM

It's just impossible Wolfgang. Here is another example of Shambles getting things twisted.

The forum is given to us equally - but some (even anonymous ones) are trusted to be more equal than the others - who although prepared to use their own name and be accountable for their contributions - plainly are not thought to be trusted at all.

Where this one goes wrong is Shambles is comparing the fact that volunteers are allowed by Max to operate anonymously with anonymous posting. The problem is that the way the volunteer system works, you have to be logged on as a member to use the system. In other words, all volunteers are people who use a consistant name or handle for their posts at Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 06:23 AM

Here's another beauty of a Shambles question:

What posters it [the 'bleeping' for anti-social behaviour] applies to and what posters it will never apply to - no matter how poor an example they set?

No meaningful response is possible to such a question. It presupposes something that is in my eyes not true (that there are posters to which 'it' never will apply). In addition to that, the usual Shambles argument (no Shables post is complete without it) of the poor example that 'they' set is woven into a question.

Well, it could be argued that this was meant as a rhetorical question, but I have made the experience that Shambles has repeatedly insisted upon a response to what at best was a rhetorical question and then has wrongly attributed his inability to understand my response to the response and not to the question.

I have no control over your style, Shambles, that's completely up to you. But with me leading questions or presuppositional questions do not work.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:33 PM

Ah....yes, I have heard of you. Very good.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:26 PM

I am Hawkster, it's just that they refer to me as "Ketchup."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:22 PM

Those are inspired ideas, Spaw. Specially the first one. I frankly cannot understand why, with a mind like yours, you aren't a household name by now (off Mudcat, I mean...).

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:18 PM

Hawk, I think that would depend on the type and quality of the individual competitions. For instance, a Tug-O-War between a Shatner Team and a NYCFTTS Team might be a big draw. The Cletus Hardinger Air Biscuit Launch might draw a huge crowd but it would depend on wind strength and direstion.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 10:37 PM

Possibly. But would anyone purchase tickets to such an event?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:25 PM

Max provides Mudcat to all of us - equally.

Is this basic premise at all true now in any sense? I had always thought this to be the case - so perhaps the fault in accepting this concept - is mine?

It is very difficult to pose questions that do not look a bit skewed at this point in our forum's development - because the basic premise has been skewed so much. In a completely mad world - a sane person's views would always be seen to be a bit odd. Let us examine some aspects of how the reality of the Madcat World now is.

The forum is given to us equally - but some (even anonymous ones) are trusted to be more equal than the others - who although prepared to use their own name and be accountable for their contributions - plainly are not thought to be trusted at all.

From this trusted postion - (some of) those trusted ones indulge in setting the example of judging the worth of and mounting abusive personal attacks upon fellow posters and inciting others to do this - all done in the name of preventing abusive personal attacks...and so on.

Perhaps it can be demonstrated where and when the "majority of Mudcatters" have ever chosen to place their trust in any other poster or not to place their trust in others? Or ever been asked to make this divisive choice?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:10 PM

Yeah... (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:09 PM

Besides, LH, we all know in our heart of hearts that we are ABOVE average. :-)

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 05:31 PM

I doubt that Max sits around worrying about how much he can trust the average Mudcatter (whoever that might be...).

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 04:05 PM

C'mon, Roger... that's the old "When did you stop beating your wife?" kinda question. There's no way you can answer it because the basic premise isn't true.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 12:45 PM

It's called rhetoric Wolfgang, aka verbal diarrhoea.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 10:22 AM

Why then are the "majority of Mudcatters" (especially the ones that have always contributed honestly and been prepared to always use their own names) NOT thought to be trusted by Max? (Shambles)

A typical presuppositional question, Shambles. This is but an extreme example of the questions that make a discourse with you so difficult and often pointless. The question has no menaingful response, for it presupposes something which is wrong and then only asks 'why' this is so. And it has nothing at all to do with what Joe has said in your quote.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 09:15 AM

Is it really sense to ever trust an anonymous person? Or be said to be doing this - or ever be asked to?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 09:08 AM

Roger, if you see my point, how do you propose to address the practical difficulties?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: kendall
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 09:02 AM

Joe, you sure do make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 08:57 AM

I think that goes a bit too far, El Greko. Max provides Mudcat to all of us - equally. He has chosen a few of us to use our judgment in doing moderate editing to keep the peace. He chose volunteers he trusts, people who are trusted by the majority of Mudcatters.
-Joe Offer-

The above is an editing comment (in brown) in response to El Greco's game of football (from another current thread) and inserted in his post there.

Perhaps it can be demonstrated where and when the "majority of Mudcatters" have ever chosen to place their trust in any other poster or not to place their trust in others? Or ever been asked to make this divisive choice?

Especially when many of these people - "the majority of Mudcatters" are said by Joe Offer - to be trusted by - choose and are permitted to remain anonymous?   

Why then are the "majority of Mudcatters" (especially the ones that have always contributed honestly and been prepared to always use their own names) NOT thought to be trusted by Max?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 05:15 AM

Susan

I have thought upon the matter. I see your point. Do you propose to ban our use of the word 'we'? Or of the word 'our'? - Or the word 'us' or the ..........

I am the eggman.......

Perhaps starting another thread on this subject would be a good idea?


BTW It is now Official.......
Roger isn't the problem anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: wysiwyg
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 10:19 AM

Roger, as I said, my question is not about exclusivity or about your "representing" "all Mudcatters." It's a practical matter. Please re-read my post and give it some thought.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 09:32 AM

Well Roger if anybody should know about writing complete balls!!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:53 AM

It's Max's ball. No argument with that


Max gave it to his friend Joe, for him and others to have a game.

I think that even Joe Offer himself might agree that this is re-writing the history of this game more than a little.......Some might even describe it as complete balls......?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 06:27 AM

Oh sod it - I was trying to abstain from further involvement in this, but...

...to stay with the football game analogy:

It's Max's ball.
Max gave it to his friend Joe, for him and others to have a game.
We (each one of us) came onto the field, asked to play and were accepted.
Joe, having the ball, made some rules for the game. Not many, and they make some sort of sense.
One of the rules is that he (Joe) will be the referee, and he and Max agreed on some linesmen.
Sometimes we may disagree with the referee's decision - so what. We still play the game.
Dissenters (grizzlers) are annoying, as they divert attention from the game.
Dissenters are occasionally shown the yellow card.
Persistent dissenters might be shown the red card and be evicted from the game.
Now and then passers-by (GUESTs) join in the game, and we let them. We only get really annoyed if they spoil a really good move (thread).
But we stay and play the game, as long as we have fun.
It's "our" game only in the sense that we are participating, and by making good moves (threads) we can make the game more fun.
When we are tired of it, we retire for a bit.
If we really don't like any of the above, we are free to go and play somewhere else.
I, for one am staying, and am grateful for the opportunity for a kickaround.

Choose your position.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 05:52 AM

At any given moment, on any given day, there is a completely unique "we" present at Mudcat. Now how do you propose making sure that everyone included in "we" on April 23, 2006 knows that something has or has not been agreed upon at a particular point in time? How will they know what the particulars are?

As I have said - I do not presume (unlike others here) to speak FOR anyone else but I do not exclude anyone here that I wish to talk TO - so what does it matter?

Would I be safe to use the term Mudcatters as long as it was clear that I was not speaking for anyone else but myself?

How is that no one appears gets their knickers in twist when Joe and Co use the word 'we' in a divisive way - in order to exclude ordinary Mudcatters? But only when I use it to include and refer to all Mudcatters?


It is a very strange game when referees feel they can make the rules and switch between this role and become a player - at any point in the game they choose. Perhaps not a game that is open, fair or has any clear object?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 10:44 PM

New Mudcat Mantra: DNR! (DO Not Respond!)

OR,"Remember the Filter!" (Tick the Filter Out box, put the name of whomever's posts you do NOT want to see in the filter box and hit Refresh. Voila! Their posts no longer show up!)