BS: Censorship on Mudcat

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: 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 - 09:22 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: 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 - 09:41 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: katlaughing
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:13 AM

Good catches, Noreen and Wolfgang. Thanks!

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: 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: 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
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,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: 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: 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: 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: catspaw49
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:11 AM

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

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 03:44 AM

Sorry about the apostrophe Joe, I done gone left school when I was nine years old and Didn't get no education.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 04:20 AM

I thought you were still at school FT

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 06:54 AM

Subject: RE: BS: This Thread Is Closed!
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 26 Jan 05 - 07:17 PM

Sorry, Peter. We routinely close or delete all threads that look like they're going to be an attack on an individual. Yours got deleted before it turned into another slugfest. There was no way it was going to turn out to be a constructive discussion.
As for any thread about gargoyle or Martin Gibson, we don't even think twice. We delete it.
Learn to live with it.
-Joe Offer-

Learn to live with it. The question is what exactly is IT – that all Mudcatters are being told that have to now 'learn to live with' and who comprises of the 'we' that is now telling them this?

Is the same 'we' that is being spoken for here?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:12 PM

And Martin, it's just fine for you to say "fuckashitpiss" occasionally - as long as it isn't part of a personal attack. If saying "fuckashitpiss" makes you feel good, it's O.K.

We want you to feel good.

-Sister Mary Joe Offer, R.S.V.P.-

Whether stated in all seriousness or in jest - it is NOT my view – is it speaking for yours? Or perhaps the views of the rest of Mudcatters don't matter now? Perhaps we will just have to learn to live with this too - for there does not now appear to be any choice?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Noreen
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 07:31 AM

Correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 07:34 AM

Excellent Noreen - end of subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Paco Rabanne
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: The Shambles
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 06:48 AM

Someone posted recently to the effect that we - (meaning Mudcatters) - were not children.....This was just before they childishly took considerable trouble to create an alternate menbership and personality in order to start a thread - by expressing entirely bogus views........

Mudcat censorship – a proposal

At least those who are considered to be so anti-social and get their posts deleted by anonymous but 'trusted' volunteers - (for making 'obnoxious' posts to claim the 100th posts) - don't start an entire bogus thread - simply to entertain themselves with the genuine reactions posted to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:13 AM

His huff arrived; and he went off in it!
G ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:26 AM

I see he has a new 2 door hardtop Huff. The color is kind of distasteful though.......What would you call that? Babyshit Orange or Shitmuckledung?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 08:29 AM

Looks a bit off colour [note spelling;~)] to me Spaw.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Margo
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 12:32 AM

OHHH, shut up.

BG, Margo

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 07:50 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: kendall - PM
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 07:41 AM

Without some control this site could degenerate into just another cesspool of personal attacks, and end up inhabited by nasty people who drive good folks away.
If a handful of assholes lack the wit to temper what they say here, they should be censored.

Any objective poster reading this thread from the start - will find a perfect example of the few 'who lack the wit to temper what they say here" This is with the current control that many still blindly support.

They will see the same names posting abusive personal attacks and being encouraged to make these judgements by the example that is set by our trusted volunteers.

Are good folks being driven-off by these 'nasty folks' and are they too worried about themseves being subject to these 'semi-official' personal attacks - to feel free to express a view that may also bring this attention upon them?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Once Famous
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 05:45 PM

FUCKASHITPISS

We now resume this stupid nonsense.

Thanks. You all wouldn't offend so easily if you had something other than a paper asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 05:55 PM

Compared to this, the 'cat ain't even a minor infringement.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 02:12 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Pubic information service
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 03:11 AM

Friggin' amazing.................I'll grant that I'm around less than I used to be and things do change over time, but when the hell did the chat become some kindof privileged communication? Is there about to be another altercation.....this one between the chatters and non-chatters? How in the name of gawd do we take such simple and fun stuff and jam-pack it with rules?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 05:43 AM

Paper assholes are handy, Martin - they are self-cleaning. You should get one.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 05:45 AM

Then others wouldn't have to clean up after you

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,El Greko sans biscuit
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 05:47 AM

Sorry - the last two GUEST posts were mine.
Just a joke, Martin, no offence meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 12:23 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: El Greko - PM
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM

Xander, you talk rubbish - as Martin Gibbons might have said in more flowery language :-)

Absolute freedom is open to absolute abuse and would destroy this forum. Normal rules of civility should apply, and where they do not, the clones should be allowed to trim offending or time-wasting (or disk space-wasting) texts.


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.

I am in favour of minimal censorship, next to zero: The only case I would say it is needed is when libellour remarks have been made, and that is only to protect Max as the owner of the site. As for the rest, sexist or racist or hate-mongering and name-calling posts don't worry me; I am old enough to ignore them and form an opinion about the posters - just like in the 3-D world, really. There is no better antidote than to ignore such rubbish and those that peddle it.


Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: El Greko - PM
Date: 23 Mar 05 - 01:08 PM

...except we are not children, Roger. The argument again does not stack up.


'Oh the games people play now'

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 12:31 PM

Funny, Roger. Read my 06:18PM post from the "Why do you offend so easily" thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 02:24 AM

What's the matter with this thread?

It was you who started it...........

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 02:36 AM

As long as everybody's gettin' along . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 02:42 AM

Morning, all

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 03:21 AM

Funny, Roger. Read my 06:18PM post from the "Why do you offend so easily" thread.

Is that the one where you claim that you may offend people - 'by being yourself'?

And where you go on to say that it was their fault - if anyone was offended by you taking-up another membership and a new name - in order to not 'be yourself' for an April fools' jest?

Perhaps this latter excuse from you would have a little more justification - if the jest in question - had not started on the 30th March? Perhaps anyone who was offended - could be excused for being offended by a April fools' jest - started some two days too soon?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Peace
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 03:30 AM

"Perhaps this latter excuse from you would have a little more justification - if the jest in question - had not started on the 30th March?"

El G announced it at least ten days prior to starting the joke if memory serves.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:33 AM

Thanks Brucie. Indeed, I gave plenty of warning (three times) well before.

Yes, Roger - that's me. No pretence. I occasionally crack jokes; especially April Fool ones. They are not malicious (at least I don't think they are, and I don't mean them to be). End of story. There isn't any more. No alterior motive. One can either laugh with me, laugh at me when the joke falls flat, ignore me, get annoyed, take offence where none was meant, misinterpret, quote out of context, whatever. People can make their own choice according to their conscience. Mine is clear.

Life's too short to spend trying to please all the people all of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:38 AM

Who takes any notice of George? :~)
G..