 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Censorship on Mudcat
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 07 Mar 05 - 09:59 PM Coulda been worse. Least I was only castigated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 08 Mar 05 - 02:52 AM "The virtue of justice consists in moderation, as regulated by wisdom." Aristotle The quotes are from this site called Everything In Moderation. Which is a site about the moderation of internet website etc. http://www.everythinginmoderation.org/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: jeffp Date: 08 Mar 05 - 08:44 AM Ah, yes. Aristotle was a very prolific writer on internet issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 08 Mar 05 - 09:05 AM The quotes may be from a mod site, but Aristotle was not writing about the internet! ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:14 AM "Yep! But brucie were givin' 'em breedin' room... Hence the resounding :p" Of couse, whether or not I give a rat's ass is another issue. LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Pauline L Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:35 AM Great truths endure. Even though Aristotle didn't write about the Internet, if what he wrote was good, it can be applied to the Internet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 08 Mar 05 - 11:37 AM The internet has an entirely different meaning for the word-- it's not the same concept at all. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 09 Mar 05 - 06:22 AM Raedwulf says Are you sure about that, Roger? Are you really really sure? Because you ram your views far more often, far more persistently & far more vehemently down everyone's throats than any of the clones ever do. I am sure that I can't 'ram' or impose - nor have I any wish to. I can only express my view, present the facts and hope to shape our forum in the traditional way – by my contributions to a discussion forum - which you and other posters, can easily choose to ignore. Our unknown and numberless volunteers are NOW able to shape our forum by what they choose to delete by the imposition of their judgement - it is not quite so easy for the rest of us to ignore this. Especially if your invited contribution is permanently lost when an entire thread is deleted. Not because there was anything wrong with it – but because our volunteers could not be bothered to take the time, to deal only with what they considered the offending post. In the context of an internet board (which seems to escape Roger all too frequently) , moderating means keeping the discussion within "reasonable" bounds. Yes, "reasonable" is subjective & dependent on the moderators. But it is normally taken to mean pruning anything overtly offensive. So no spam (which everyone except the spammers seem to find offensive), no anonymous slanging matches (MC is a bit weak on stopping this, IMHO), public personal vitriol is discouraged (which MC allows a reasonable amount of latitude on, but does sometimes close down), that kind of thing. I do try and produce evidence to support my view of the reality of all this imposed censorship. See my posting in this thread of -06 Feb 05 - 04:13 PM – for evidence. This shows that our volunteers – from their privileged and responsible position- set the poor example of indulging in abusive personal attacks, incite other to do the same and seem to think this is amusing. Is this the example that moderators should be setting? The nature of this part of a website - that is open for and has historically been shaped by the contributions of the public – does not ever escape me. I think there is evidence that it does perhaps escape some of our volunteers who are very confused about what this part of Max's website is in reality or what their imposed editing action is really try to acheive. This confusion over purpose - is very evident from the nature of the imposed editing action. The idea that our forum is (MAINLY or ONLY) a site for research – is probably the biggest misconception. The attempt to intentionally turn our public discussion forum into this by the imposition of this view – when its strucure will allow much more - is probably the single biggest mistake. It is probably not very honest to support the editing actions of this practice either for this attempt is not moderation – it is something else. I found this definition : person using strength or power to coerce others by fear – persecute or oppress by force or threats. This was not the definition of the methods or intention of a moderator – but those of a bully. The facts are all here – you judge……But these facts will demonstrate that if you should post and assume to judge our volunteer judges (in any way other than being totally uncritical)- you should probably be prepared for them to mount abusive personal attacks, incite others to do this and encourage the idea that this practice is humourous - when undertaken against certain (safe) targets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:09 AM Another example of objective 'moderation' from our volumteers - or another example of bullying? You judge........... Subject: RE: BS: Anti-semitism From: Big Mick - PM Date: 15 Mar 05 - 11:10 AM Dewey .... your attempts to alibi your original contentions won't fly. It is entirely appropriate that we would combine threads that are essentially the same or going to the same place. Don't like it? Oh well..... If I had caught all this earlier, I would have deleted it. Bill D doesn't need defending. His goodness shines through. As a Christian, I wish more Christians were like him. Bill might challenge your arguments, but he doesn't attack you. He is the classic example of being tolerant of others views. Would that more of my Christian brothers and sisters were like that. Oh yeah ..... goodbye. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:58 AM Anti-semitism The above thread was closed.
By the way, the Kurd Thread was also closed. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 16 Mar 05 - 09:11 AM Regarding Mick's post quoted below-- 1. In addition to being a supervised site volunteer workig within policies made clear by site administrators, Mick is a member here with as much right to have (and state) an opinion as anyone else. 2. If Mick HAD deleted or closed the thread in question, his action would have been reviewed by site administrators. His action could have been reversed if he had not interpreted or applied policy correctly. There ya have it. Another tempest in a teapot, debunked. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 16 Mar 05 - 10:10 AM You would appear to welcome to express your opinion and seen in isolation your judgement may appear to have some substance. However a picture is beginning to build-up from many such instances - that possibly does not support your view? But it seems that a higher authority even that our volunteers may have been responsible for closing this thread? Subject: RE: BS: Anti-semitism From: WYSIWYG - PM Date: 15 Mar 05 - 04:54 PM Dewey, as you know I'm a praying woman. I'm praying that this thread will be closed, that you will find and join the site you dream of, and that God will speak to you there in such a way that you realize how really dumb you have been at Mudcat. ~Susan That thread was closed - so it looks as if (at least some of your) prayers were answered....By the Chief 'Goderator'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Jeri Date: 16 Mar 05 - 10:10 AM Wikpedia entry on Internet Trolls - it's interesting, it's pretty deep, and it rings so many bells, you'll need ear plugs. This thread: another example of personal attack via 'polite' stalking - or another example of trolling? You judge....... .....or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 16 Mar 05 - 01:20 PM In some of the personal abuse presented to me by our volunteers and their supporters - I will settle for 'polite' anything. But of course troll or trolling is just another device and yet another name to call someone whose views you may not like or share. If this thread was such a thing it would present no threat or concern and could safely be ignored. If it was honestly thought to be such a thing - then the very best example for our volunteers to set - would be to ignore it and not to post to the thread to send it right back to the top again. [As Joe Offer manages not to do - when he again expresses his personal view as an editorial comment when no editing has taken place and inserts it into someone else's post without their permission] Perhaps a good guideline for the future would be that if a thread is not judged to be worth refreshing - it is not worth contributing to? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:16 PM Oh crap, Roger! Our mods are people, not saints. As Susan has already pointed out, the mods are also members & are entitled to post their opinions. If you think that's wrong, then perhaps the rest of us should start a campaign to get you installed as a mod? I mean, we could be sure you'd never censor anything, & since you'd then feel duty bound to shut up... ;-)Ditto to your comments about Joe. What on earth is the problem here? We all know who said what. Has it not occurred to you that perhaps Joe chose to make the remark in the 'editorial' fashion because he is commenting on Mudcat policy, rather than expressing his own personal opinion? Only if his personal opinion is in opposition to the official line does your complaint have any substance (& then only on a very technical, pedantic basis, cos we still know exactly who said what to whom...). Since, as far as I am aware, Joe's expressed opinion *is* the official line, you are, once more "tilting at windmills" Don Shambles! ;-) In fact, it is arguable that in your persistent sniping at Joe, you are in fact indulging in a campaign of "personal abuse", albeit politely phrased (but that makes it no less wearying, believe me!). On a more tightly moderated board you would have been warned or somehow circumscribed a long time ago. Be thankful for small mercies! If you can find threads where a moderator has both been abusive & has controlled the debate (by editing, deletion or closure) then you might well have a case for editorial abuse that needs answering. Exactly that accusation was what caused my resignation from my snail mail journal. I defended myself (with a clear conscience, I might add), the accusation was politely ("but nevertheless...") repeated, I resigned. Abuse of privilege is serious (NB: I don't regard combining two threads (vice your above quote) as stifling debate, merely streamlining it. Dewey can presumably continue to post to the open thread?). In which case, by all means squawk as loudly & as publicly as you can. If others agree with you, I am sure that your case would be taken up. If it isn't... I'm afraid your constant repetition is something that many of us seem to find tiresome. You jump at shadows, you can be a monomaniacal bore. Too much of the reaction I've seen here suggests that too many members would be inclined to agree. I say again, "But you raise it again & again. And again & again. And again & again & again & again... And you never seem to realise that it is only you banging the same tired old rhythm on the same worn out old drum. Me? I'd be wondering whether I was out of step with the rest of board & whether I ought to reconsider my opinions. But it never seems to occur to you..." Do you ever stop to wonder why you make so little progress with your arguments, Roger? Best wishes, Rædwulf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 16 Mar 05 - 02:31 PM If you can find threads where a moderator has both been abusive & has controlled the debate (by editing, deletion or closure) then you might well have a case for editorial abuse that needs answering. IF..........? *BIG SMILE* This evidence has been provided or linked to in this thread. There is no shortage of such evidence of our forum now being shaped by this - but if you are determined to hold and express a view that ignores all of this evidence - I am not sure why you would expect me or anyone else to take your opinion seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Mar 05 - 03:08 PM Oy, Rædwulf, I think you've just opened the door to further tirades. Shambles has an entire library of quotations to misquote. I did make a mistake in judgment in 1907, and I said something that implied something negative about Shambles (but I did not say it in a brown editorial comment). He has copy-pasted it many times since then, in many different contexts. Since he has posted it so often, I think he may actually be quite proud of what I implied about him, but I certainly have come to regret what I said. I also once said that I was sick of Shambles' whining, and Shambles apparently considers that to be a personal attack from me. I don't think it was an attack - but it was a personal opinion and not Mudcat policy, so I didn't put it in a brown editorial remark. He's still whining, but I've learned to take it with a sense of humor and to more-or-less ignore him most of the time. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Ebbie Date: 16 Mar 05 - 03:19 PM 1907? Gads, the Shambles has been going on even longer than I thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Raedwulf Date: 16 Mar 05 - 03:40 PM Joe, lots of people are sick of Shambles'... ummm... repetition? (Alright Roger, I'll come quietly, yes I really meant whining...) ;-) On the other hand, I've PM'ed Roger to try to find out exactly what "evidence" he is referring to. The most obvious possibility (which I told him I assumed is not the one he means) is the thread he has referenced today. Which was going nowhere & consists of a number of people entirely disagreeing with Dewey. I wouldn't necessarily characterise it as "personal attacks", as compared with, say, the slanging match that went on between me & Martin G on the Holocaust thread (mea culpa, sinner & sinned against, to a degree!). It certainly isn't the "abusive & controlled" thread that I referred to above. If that's the thread he meant, then he's suffering tunnel vision again IMHO, but I await his clarification. The real point here is that Roger can quote anything he wants anytime he wants. But until he gets support from named & known members, he still has one inescapable question to answer - Do you ever stop to wonder why you make so little progress with your arguments, & does it ever occur to you to wonder whether you are out of step with the rest of the board & whether you ought to reconsider your opinions. Two different ways of asking the same thing, & a question which, so far, Roger has preferred to sidestep... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 16 Mar 05 - 04:16 PM This thread reminds me of the worst case o' crabs I ever had. Took weeks and weeks to get rid of them. Like the herpes virus that rears its head at coldsore season, so too does this thread remind us that the days of our lives are numbered. Fungus in the jockstrap; warts on the petunia; tits on a bull. Pass that over here, will ya Dave? I promise not to inhale. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:14 PM It is entirely appropriate that we would combine threads that are essentially the same or going to the same place. Don't like it? Oh well..... Is it entirely appropriate that thread titles are for our volunteers to impose their judgement and change in any way without seeking the permission of the originator - especially when there is no question of the original title being offensive? And if you do not consider that this practice by our volunteers is entirely appropriate and in keeping with the spirit of our forum - is it entirely appropriate that the rest of us are told by these volunteers - at this stage in our forum's development - in effect to take it or leave it - as 'we' are going to do it anyway? Joe Offer - whilst claiming thread titles are his to change at will -has stated that the posts themselves are sacrosanct - but does not see that insisting on imposing his editing comments in these posts - without permission and where no editing has taken place in order not to refresh the thread - is not honouring this...What is next?
As a matter of fact, what is wrong with the brown comments, other than that they are a violation of your own arbitrary rules that you seek to impose upon the editorial staff of Mudcat? Isn't that it? - that you want to be king, and you've had a royal snit for threee years now because no one has seen fit to recognize your royalty? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:21 PM If I had any friggin' hair left I'd pull it out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Jeri Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:32 PM Damn. Brucie, I had this image of you with a full head of wavy hair, just like William Shatner. I guess when one has illusions about others' hair, there's always hell toupe. Look at it as watching somebody make balloon animals out of logic. They're supposed to be giraffes and weiner dogs and stuff like that, but they all look like sausages with legs, which pretty much means they DO look like weiner dogs, but not giraffes. And presumably, you still have eyebrows and nose hair. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 16 Mar 05 - 07:39 PM LOL Good one, Jeri. Yeah. I'm at the age where I got hair damn near every place I don't want it and none of the places I do. I'll be buying black satin pillow cases so's I can find it all in the morning. Thanks for the laugh there gal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Sorcha Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:04 PM Oh fer gawd's sake. Just shut up. First and LAST time I'll post to this one. Good grief Charlie Brown. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Azizi Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:36 PM Forget Captain Kirk. Where is Spock when we need him?! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,William Shatner Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:43 PM Leonard is otherwise engaged at the moment. I'll try to handle this. Shambles, you must realize that every world has its imperfections. No society or microcosm of society will ever meet one's every hope and requirement perfectly. Grow up, sir. Accept the fact that things are as they are, and get on with your life. Either that or buy the damned forum out, and run it as you see fit. - William Shatner |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Azizi Date: 16 Mar 05 - 08:55 PM But Captain, your statement "Accept the fact that things are as they are, and get on with your life " doesn't take into consideration the drive we humans have to correct and enhance what is.. I'm not concerned about challenging "what is" from the inside. It's just that it doesn't appear to me that Shambles has made his case that wrong has occurred. Maybe Spock could make Shambles see reason about this. IMO, Captain Kirk failed in his attempt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:27 AM Ah yes - logic. 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- The ability of our volunteers to read the future - to delete and close threads BEFORE they contain anything that may cause offence - is not logical Jim. As every thread has the potential to turn 'into another slugfest' perhaps all threads should be routinely deleted or closed by our all-seeing volunteers - before they can and perhaps the rest of us will just have to 'learn to live with it. For that is the logical conclusion of such imposed judgement. Being forced to live with these ultimatums from our volunteers may be life - but not as we have come to know it on our forum..... All I am trying to do is to demonstrate that what is defended in the 'spin' is not what is now happening in reality. The reality of this should be very clear from the evidence and links in this thread. You judge from reading this evidence - where we are now and where we are going............. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Mar 05 - 08:45 AM God give me the serenity to accept things which cannot be changed; Give me courage to change things which must be changed; And the wisdom to distinguish one from the other. - Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr Union Theological Seminary NYC, 1932 ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Mar 05 - 09:32 AM "All I am trying to do is to demonstrate that what is defended in the 'spin' is not what is now happening in reality. The reality of this should be very clear from the evidence and links in this thread. You judge from reading this evidence - where we are now and where we are going............." Yes, the reality is Mudcat is moving toward a higher level of moderation and not even Joe wants to say so. For a very long time we were able to enjoy the freedom that a small community can provide. Only Garg was much of a problem and even then we "knew the devil" so he was a sort of in-house troll that required very little attention. As the place grew we acquired the things that come with a larger community and that also meant that to keep pure chaos and anarchy from reigning supreme, certain steps had, repeat had, to be taken. And whether you or I or Max or Joe or Jeff like it, additional things will more than likely need to be implemented as growth continues. Sorry , but you can't go home again. Funny thing though Sham, I think Joe longs for those older days and hates the idea of doing more even more than you do. He doesn't want to do more and I think he hopes every additional thing will be the last. But it just don't work that way. More changes will happen. Period. You aren't going to like them and neither will Max or Jeff or Joe of me, but happen they will out of necessity. The difference here is that you think you CAN go home again and the rest of us sorrowfully know you can't. You continue to harp on these issues ad nauseum and unless you are much less intelligent that I figure you to be, I have to question the reason you do so. What is the point? Face the simple truth......You are not going to change things back to where they were and you are not going to stop the growth of this place which will make even more structure necessary. You will however sacrifice any credibility you have left. Your continual carping in the face of all reality does not make you a courageous martyr or whatever, it just makes you look like an ass. "The ability of our volunteers to read the future - to delete and close threads BEFORE they contain anything that may cause offence - is not logical Jim. As every thread has the potential to turn 'into another slugfest' perhaps all threads should be routinely deleted or closed by our all-seeing volunteers - before they can and perhaps the rest of us will just have to 'learn to live with it. For that is the logical conclusion of such imposed judgement." I belong to a large auto racing forum that works exactly that way and yet it is freindly with excellent discussions, many of them quite heated. But the rules are strict and the mods enforce them tightly with no recall. Even with all that is imposed there, the place is still fun and it works. No, it's not got much freedom but civil discussions are the norm and even in our "fun forum" over there, the rules are still in effect. Life there is much easier. Freedom requires personal resopnsibility and very few here will take it and it makes an A number One breeding ground for trolls and flamers. Try to adjust and if you can't at least try and shut up. You are accomplishing nothing on any sort of positive note with this continual whining. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: The Shambles Date: 17 Mar 05 - 02:26 PM Yes, the reality is Mudcat is moving toward a higher level of moderation and not even Joe wants to say so. Funny thing though Sham, I think Joe longs for those older days and hates the idea of doing more even more than you do. He doesn't want to do more and I think he hopes every additional thing will be the last. This is what you think Joe thinks. It is not what he says and until he does say this - it is probably better if we just judge him by his actions - and what he does say. I have not said this and I certainly have no wish to return to some mythical golden period. I support the forum continuing to natuarally evolve by its invited contributions from the public. I do not support our forum being shaped by the imposed personal judgements of a few and and deltions and thread closures being based on this. But I also do not wish to see the same old excuses wheeled-out to justify the bad example now being set by our volunteers - in the use of abusive language, personal judgements, and generally responding in kind - by those few who assume that their inabilty to act responsibily and ignore obvious provocation - is shared by other posters. It is not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff Date: 17 Mar 05 - 02:34 PM I have been censored on Mudcat and probably Joe Offer did me a favor. Peter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 17 Mar 05 - 02:49 PM "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill because they ticked me off." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:22 PM "I do not support our forum being shaped by the imposed personal judgements of a few and and deltions and thread closures being based on this." Well then I'd say you're screwed because that is how these things go! The contributions of the members you so heartily endorse become nothing but forum killers as the trolls and flamers run amok unchecked. Soon there will be fewer and fewer good memebers until eventually nothing is left but the worst and then, and only then, they too will leave. In their wake they will leave nothing of value. You can't see that though can you? You refuse to accept that moderation and censorship becomes needed when forums reach certain levels. Mudcat maintains a tiny amount by all comparison and you can't even accept that! I can direct you to some very good forums where conversations move along quite freely and yet are very heavily censored. You'd be apoplectic! And one other thing......most all of your posts on this thread would have been deleted. MAtter of fact, this entire thread would have been zapped as soon as it appeared. And yet the folks in those forums all seem to have a good time talking about the topics that interest them and there are no trolls or flamers. Mods let them know when they're stretching the envelope and things fall back in line. Personally I think that level of moderation and censorship is too much, but I can also see it works. I fail to see why you refuse to understand that the limited moderation here is no big deal. We ought to be grateful that this is all there is. But with growth, more will probably become mandatory. Once again, as you have this grand idea of an uncensored forum, please go out and start one. Go for it. Let us know how it goes for you. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Sorcha Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:30 PM Shambles, you are behaving like a juvenile throwing a temper tantrum. If you don't like it, why won't you just leave? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:34 PM Once again, as you have this grand idea of an uncensored forum, please go out and start one. Go for it. Let us know how it goes for you. There are two people I know of who DID "leave" here and start another forum. Guess what. They moderated. More than here. Because it was clear that conversation was killed off here too often without some structure. They had membership criteria, required registration, and moderation. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Mar 05 - 03:36 PM PS, that post of mine was directed to Shambles in support of catspaw's point. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Mar 05 - 04:17 PM Did anyone notice what a wise sage Catspaw has become? What happened to the old Catspaw that we knew and loved? [grin] -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Mar 05 - 04:44 PM It can only happen when one takes a break from Mudcat for awhile. (Apparently, a longer while than I've experienced.) :~) ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: MudGuard Date: 17 Mar 05 - 05:09 PM Did anyone notice what a wise sage Catspaw has become? What happened to the old Catspaw that we knew and loved? The old Catspaw got - of course - censored ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 17 Mar 05 - 05:19 PM Same Shit, Different Day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: GUEST,William Shatner Date: 17 Mar 05 - 05:40 PM I had a heart to heart talk with him, and he's been much steadier since. Sometimes it just takes a few kind yet firm words from a more experienced hand to get a person on the right track and turn things around. I'm proud of what Pat...may I call you "Pat"?...has achieved in the last year. He's basically a very fine man with a warm and caring heart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 17 Mar 05 - 07:05 PM Different Day, Same Shit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: catspaw49 Date: 17 Mar 05 - 08:50 PM Feel free to call me Pat, Shatner, and I will call you Jackass. And no, Spaw has never been censored. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Mar 05 - 10:09 PM Yeah, hey, my cat Van Gogh* got censored, too. Now he's an "it" - but he is much more docile. Poor Catspaw. -Joe Offer- *usually known as "Gooey" or "Go-Go." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Peace Date: 17 Mar 05 - 10:47 PM The most unkindest cut of all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Mar 05 - 10:57 PM The first cut is the deepest! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Mar 05 - 11:15 PM Joe, here in our area, they say, "Has your dog been tutored yet?" It doesn't ever get said about female dogs tho. :~) ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat From: MudGuard Date: 18 Mar 05 - 07:33 AM Ups, "censored" seems to have a second meaning of which I was not aware ... |