BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal

Subject: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:55 AM

I have watched the "Censorship on Mudcat" thread with dismay, as more and more attacks were made at Roger (Shambles) and the main issue became clouded.

In an attempt to get back to the basics, I am starting this thread with a suggestion for how and when to apply censorship on this forum, using elements of "constitutions" of other forums I attend.

Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it need not be applied to Mudcat; that is the prerogative of Max as the forum owner. But at least we can come to some agreement on the direction censorship could take.

Here are a few simple rules:

1. Monitoring (and censorship) of threads can be delegated to volunteers, who should be NAMED and announced and should always sign with their Mudcat handle in order to censor or modify or comment on a posting.

2. Ideally such monitors (or "clones" as they are often referred to) should only hold the position for a maximum term of 1 year.

3. The reasoning for any thread closure or post deletion should be announced publicly as a separate thread. This will allow discussion of the reasoning to take place without cluttering the original thread.

4. Legitimate reasons for post deletion can only be:
   a) potentially libellous statements
   b) overtly racist remarks

5. Legitimate reasons for amending a post can only be:
   a) to delete personal information given in a post
   b) to delete web links to pornographic or racist sites

That's it. What do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:52 AM

Well, I really haven't been keeping up with the other thread but I'm not too sure having an *explainatory thread* will do much more than continue whatever was being censored...

Like Madcatter A calls Mudcatter B a ____________. So then the censorer starts a thread entitled,"Mudcatter A's thread Closed for calling Mudcatter B a ______________".

I think we are all adults here and know when we might have stepped over the line. I don't think that givin' someone's rude bahavior additional attention will do anything but reinforce their rude behavior...

I think maybe another way to deal with the problem would be to not close a thread unless it becomes out of control wacko. Instead, the inappropriate post be deleted, but not the name of the poster. This way the thread wouldn't get killed off and the flow of the thread wouldn't get hyjacked...

But having said that, I think that deleting a post should be the last resort... I'd hate to see it over used.

Jus' my 2 cents worth...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:16 AM

I don't think the current system can be reformed. The reason why it can't be, IMO, is that Max, Joe and Big Mick are bullies, which is half the problem. When your forum moderators are bullies, that sets up the dysfunctional, secretive, and wholly arbitrary dynamic that exists here.

Susu's Hubby explained it quite well in the other thread when he said:

"I, too, have been labeled as a troll on more than a few occasions. I think it really has to do with what you believe and how you state it. In this little web community, you have a lot of people that think and believe in a certain way. That's fine. But when somebody comes in and defies that way of thinking, then automatically they are labeled as a "troll" or "flamer."

It could be a way to dodge the really tough questions and not have to answer them. I don't know. It may be that there is no way to argue effectively against a point that someone has made so a troll label is thrown out and everyone migrates towards another topic to take the pressure off of everyone else."

And BTW, I'd add sexist posting to the racist posting standard, and would support blocking IPs of posters like Martin Gibson. In all my years here, he is the only poster who is intentionally offensive and abusive enough to warrant it (I'm post-Gargoyle). You can't write that off by claiming it is his "personal style".

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
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: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:41 AM

Bullies never bully people they perceive as their peers, El Greko, so I'm not surprised you, and many other forum users don't see them as bullies. If they perceive you as their peers (ie not "beneath their contempt") you are safe. So long as you don't directly challenge their authority.

But if you look closely at how they treat Shambles (just as an example), it is easy to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:48 AM

You would, El Greko, you brown-nosed shit-stirring creep!
But I did not put up the thread for you to discuss the personalities of Joe Offer and the rest of the clones. Please restrict yourself to commenting on the proposal above.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:55 AM

Xander, your very opening "as more and more attacks were made at Roger (Shambles)" pretty much ensured that would happen.

I'll say the same sort of thing to you as one of the points I tried to make to Shambles. If you just want an honest discussion on whether people believe the levels of censorship are right, fair, etc. do so without dragging personalities (on either side) into it like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:56 AM

1. Monitoring (and censorship) of threads can be delegated to volunteers, who should be NAMED and announced and should always sign with their Mudcat handle in order to censor or modify or comment on a posting.

Naming the volunteers opens them up to huge amounts of critiscism - quite frequently from posters who don't even have the courtesy to give a use-name.

2. Ideally such monitors (or "clones" as they are often referred to) should only hold the position for a maximum term of 1 year.

a year is barely enough time to really get to know the system.

3. The reasoning for any thread closure or post deletion should be announced publicly as a separate thread. This will allow discussion of the reasoning to take place without cluttering the original thread.

ridiculous!

4. Legitimate reasons for post deletion can only be:
   a) potentially libellous statements
   b) overtly racist remarks

likewise ridiculous!

5. Legitimate reasons for amending a post can only be:
   a) to delete personal information given in a post
   b) to delete web links to pornographic or racist sites

therefore any corrections of links, misinformation, etc should only be made at the request of the original poster? Not good.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: wysiwyg
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 09:12 AM

Well, Xander, welcome to Mudcat.

Using site tools open to us all, I see that your posting history began on 21-Mar-05. How remarkable that in such a short time, you feel that you know Mudcat well enough to propose policy! However, it appears from your post above (brown-nosed shit-stirring creep) that you may lack the membership maturity to carry your proposal forward, effectively! :~)

Now, I've been around here for quite some time. I'd like to offer you a friendly heads-up about this community-- the first thing I'd suggest you perceive about Mudcat is that no one can control how people here post. So when you say things like please restrict yourself to commenting on the proposal above, you reveal how poorly you have estimated the context relevant to what you're trying to address.

I also note from your posting history that only two of your posts were in the music section-- so my second friendly heads-up would be to suggest that you spend more time in the forum's main section before getting too caught up in the BS section, where most of the issues that concern you so much are located. Ultimately, when people aren't here for the music, they're missing the whole point of Mudcat. I know that's a pretty sweeping statement. But you know, as a longtime member who's seen (and been caught up in) just about everything here, I take the liberty of saying that.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 09:30 AM

GUEST of 08:56 AM :

Simply saying "ridiculous" is a comment, strictly speaking, but not a helpful one. Please explain further. Also, I think you misunderstood my point 5. I did not say (and did not mean) that deletions can only be made at the request of the original poster.

WYSIWYG, or should I say Susan,
You are right that I have been a member only for a short time, but I have been visiting as a Guest for much longer.
Regarding my maturity - OK, I shot from the hip with that statement; but I am sick and tired of El Greko defending the Powers That Be. I promise I will PM him with my apologies.
As for the rest of your post, I take it as well meant and will not argue any points.

Now, can we get back to discussing my suggestion? I note by the way the earlier Guest's point about including "sexist" in 4(b) and he/she (not meant as a joke!) is perfectly correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 09:55 AM

You missed out deletion of personal attacks. There were several threads started a while ago, and it's come out in other threads; unwarranted personal and vindictive attacks designed to do nothing but make the attacker feel powerful and superior. I've never felt bullied by the 'Joe Clones' but I have felt distinctly uncomfortable at some of the annonymous posters that have felt the need to inform the world that I have a fat arse or that I speak my mind.


But to defend Shambles and then to do exactly the thing you're defending him for, to another poster, does sort of disincline folks to think you're serious.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Ale******
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:03 AM

Zander you're mistaking this place for a members club run by a chairman and a committee. It is a club of largely like minded friends, our the ethos is music and our ethics are old fashioned. We prefer good manners, and are offended by personal attacks. We like to see Mudcatters play like good girls and boys and would prefer it if members didn't throw their toys out the pram every time they imagine they are being got at. It is not up to us how this place is run, and it's gotten along pretty well on the present basis for some time. If you care to look back through the records you will find this argument keeps coming up, and Max has heard it all before, so he does the best thing, and ignores it, he will still be here long after you've gone. I suggest also that you take look at Roger/Shambles posts in their entirety, you may then understand why some people have lost sympathy with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,katlaughing coming through the backdoor
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:27 AM

Well-said, LtS and Ale******.

joeclones get enough crap heaped on them, most of it unsubstantiated and/or the delusions of conspiracy theorists, without going public

With a posted set of what will and will not be tolerated, there is no need for any endless thread explaining nor defending decisions of Jeff, Max, Joe and the clones regarding moderating the forum. This is a privately owned site, not a democracy.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,gnu
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:36 AM

Ah, no. I've read a fair bit of garbage (IMHO, of course) here in the past five years. However, the garbage accounts for about two fifths of five eighths of fuck all compared to the knowledge, wisdom, compassion, humour... I like the seating arrangements here at the Café just fine, thank you.

PS - If anyone has any negative feelings, I hope you don't let this deter you from supporting Max's non-profit, tireless efforts to maintain this free site for the goal of preserving and promoting folk and blues, and for YOUR benefit.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:41 AM

Non-profit meaning willful non-functioning and stubborn refusal to fix it, of course.

And non-profit should not be misconstrued, in the case of Mudcat, as meaning that Max has never received any money for his lackluster efforts.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:48 AM

DNR

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Amos
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:49 AM

In addition, you should know that Roger Shambles' "mistreatment" is the end product of a long and tireless campaign of passive-aggression on his part, incredibly wordy exercises in word-chasing and thought-juggling disguised as communication but often with a dominant undertone of blaming others and claiming victimization of self. Joe and others who have stepped onto the squirrel cage of dialogue with Roger have often struggled patiently and articulately to answer his points only to have them changed and their answers nullified by absquemious and baroque architectures of endless odorous gymnastics which have added little or nothing to the discussion but have extended it in volume to boxcars worth, stretching over the horizon, all redolent of the same sweat and whine combination.

Therefore, I second both of Madam WYG's suggestions.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,gnu
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:55 AM

10:42 AM... You are partially right. I'm not getting into a pissing contest here about how things are run. As far as $, you're right he has. I have purchased goods, I have won auction bids, and I have sent cheques for which my only remuneration was this site. And it was damn worth while. And there's a lot of 'Cats who have done the same... for years. You are welcome, 10:42 AM.

"Lackluster"? You obviously know little, if anything, of the history of his efforts.

Normally, I do not respond to trolls. I shall not again in this thread. See ya.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 12:07 PM

Xander... Mudcat is NOT a democracy... If you don't LIKE the rules here, or the way they are enforced or not, kindly experience the egress...

That's your ONLY recourse

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,WYS
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 12:13 PM

That's your ONLY recourse

Unless of course one wants to participate on the music side, and contribute something positively, there.

I think for some time now, a lot of folks have had Mudcat confused with a free-hosting, personal blog site-- where someone will do all the work to keep the site open for them, and pay all the fees associated with the site, for an unlimited number of individuals to have their own, unlimited soapbox.

Actually, it's a music site. The rest is ancillary to that.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 12:33 PM

The suggestions in the first post show a naivete regarding the history of Mudcat, some of its more argumentative menbers, and the experience of how it operates.

From: Xander
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:48 AM

You would, El Greko, you brown-nosed shit-stirring creep!


I'm also underwhelmed with the temperament demonstrated so far by this new member. It's usually a good idea to lurk for a while before sticking your neck out and suggesting changes. And like Susan said, spend some time in the music threads and forget about the BS for a while. Take a true measure of the Mudcat before you try to fix it.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 12:56 PM

No need for shades of gray here. The only guidelines needed are those in the minds of the owner and the moderators---.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,catspaw49
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 12:57 PM

Well, you want a set of rules.....Here ya' go! This is the substantive portin of the Terms of Agreement for Use which everyone signs at one of my other favorite sites where I spend a lot of time. It's an auto racing site with multiple forums covering various forms of racing and including a Fan Fun Forum which was added when it became obvious that folks occasionally wanted to tal a bit about issues of the day or tell a few jokes or just BS, much like we used to do here before the BS became much as Susan states.....some kind of multiple blog site with nothing but politico-religious fights and very limited fun.

In any case, over on the Speed Boards, THESE are the rules everyone plays by or they don't play at all.The mods are selected by the site owners, known only as their screen names, and their decisions are final. Any appeals are made privately and not discussed with the membership as a whole. If a post or a thread gets zapped, that's it. Period. If you start a thread questioning why and all of that, it gets zapped too. It's very simple. When a post or thread gets zapped there is no explanation given.

I would also add that the place is very friendly, has a lot of great discussions and arguments, and runs along quite smoothly. So here you go.....Rules that work (the italics are mine:

While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should they see fit. As a user you agree to any information you have entered above being stored in a database. While this information will not be disclosed to any third party without your consent the webmaster, administrator and moderators cannot be held responsible for any hacking attempt that may lead to the data being compromised.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:06 PM

When you post to a privatly owned website (which the MudCat Cafe is)

"You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should they see fit" should be a given and not even need to be stated.

Just as when you are on private propertie the owner has the right to ask you to leave - and anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,GUEST, El Greko minus "biscuit"
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:26 PM

OK, easy on the guy, Xander did in fact PM me straight away to apologise. He somehow thought I was "in" on some sort of inner circle, because I had argued against Roger, that's all. We cleared that up and agreed to differ on the matter of censorship.

George the Hungry (without cookie)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:30 PM

not the old "conspiracy of the inner clique" fallacy coming up again?

*groan*

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,GUEST, El Greko still hungry
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:31 PM

Yep - my apron must have showed ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,catspaw49
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:51 PM

No Mario, it's not the clique this time. Following my interchanges with Shambles on the other thread, it's now "Spaw's Spurious Spinnin' Mudcat Puerile Posse."   What? Don't tell me your badge didn't come in the mail? I'll puit a tracer on it, I mean, I've been counting on you to help out with the horses. Like right now, we got this Appaloosa with the shits.................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Don Firth (crawled in through the cat flap)
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:54 PM

Spaw's citation of "rules that work" gets my vote.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Joe Offer
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:57 PM

Well, Xander - you have the rules of conduct pretty well figured out. More or less, we follow exactly what you propose. The rules are all posted on the FAQ. One you missed is that we do not allow personal attacks. Martin Gibson got away with them for a long time because so many people helped him by taking his bait - and deleting his countless abusive message would destroy the flow of threads to the point where they would be unintelligible. But it is at the point where Martin Gibson can be tolerated no longer. His posts will be under 100 percent review until he cleans up his act, and anything of his that even smells of combativeness will be deleted.

You're new to Mudcat, and perhaps you don't know Martin's history. I'm sure others can explain to you that it is time to bring him under control.

There is no need for a specific set of rules to describe in detail what is prohibited here. The rules are clearly stated in the FAQ, and we do our best to enforce them sparingly. We do our best to delete or edit things only when it is quite obvious that they need to be dealt with.

As for administration of Mudcat, that is handled by Max, Jeff, and Joe. We are assisted by a number of volunteers who were personally chosen by Max Spiegel, the owner of the Mudcat Cafe. They got the name JoeClones because I was the first volunteer editor - and they followed me in later years, as our traffic got heavier. They have varying levels of editorial access, and their duties and level of access change. They are all supervised by Max, Jeff, and Joe. Generally, they are supposed to provide technical assistance and correct technical errors, but we also use them on a strictly limited basis to control posts that are obviously objectionable. Every editorial action of this sort is reviewed by Max, Jeff, or Joe. But no, we're not interested in submitting every editorial action to public review or public vote - we delete objectionable posts because we want to remove them from public view. Discussing them in a public forum is exactly opposite to our purpose.



As for one-year terms for Clones, I suppose you could suggest it to Max if you like, but I certainly disagree with it. It would seem to limit our ability to control the volunteers. One volunteer who goes overboard in editing would be a major headache. I believe that Max thinks that editorial authority should remain in the hands of Max, Jeff, and Joe. Max selected volunteers that he knows personally, people he trusts completely. But as a second precaution, their work is reviewed and restricted when it comes to handling objectionable behavior.

As for Mr. Shambles, you will note that we allow him to say exactly what he wants to say - over and over again, ad nauseam. That doesn't mean that we have to bow down and thank him every time he heaps abuse on us.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:58 PM

Brown nosing shit stirrer..etc. that is the very thing that SHOULD be deleted! Grow up! If you don't like the civilized behaviour here, find another well to poison.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,John Hardly
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:00 PM

"Unless of course one wants to participate on the music side, and contribute something positively, there.

I think for some time now, a lot of folks have had Mudcat confused with a free-hosting, personal blog site-- where someone will do all the work to keep the site open for them, and pay all the fees associated with the site, for an unlimited number of individuals to have their own, unlimited soapbox.

Actually, it's a music site. The rest is ancillary to that."

The last line should be a banner heading (though, ironically, even my proposal that it should be so, demonstrates a disatisfaction with the site that I don't feel :^) ).

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,El Greko (no cookie, but had dinner)
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:21 PM

Joe, very helpful post (oh dear, I might be accused of you-know-whatting again); for me, it highlights where the difference is with Roger: Namely in the matter of open disclosure of reasons for deleting a thread/post and named joeclones.

I believe that this is precisely at the heart of Roger's complaint; and as such it indicates a lack of trust.

So - the majority trust Joe, Jeff and the clones to manage the forum efficiently and fairly. A minority does not trust them. Given that we are all guests here anyway - whether with handles or not - the obvious response is, as several pointed out above, "go play somewhere else". Just as this world is "ours" to enjoy but not to own or abuse, the same holds for Mudcat.

Roger is conspicuous by his absence - hopefully this could end up a very short thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,gnu
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:25 PM

Thanks Joe, once again, for your time and effort in helping all of us understand more clearly what you shouldn't have to take the time and effort to explain.

I'd say Max and the Clones are a pretty good bunch, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you? NNWW, eh what?... can I get an EH WHAT?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,jeffp
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:31 PM

EH WHAT?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Xander
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:39 PM

I already indicated remorse at my statement towards El Greko further up in this thread, and I apologised to him directly also. Yet some people continue to hit me over the head with my hasty words. What do they want, blood? How many times does one need to apologise?

Back to my proposal once more: Following Joe Offer's note, I gather that the amended text would be something like this now:

1. Monitoring (and censorship) of threads can be delegated to volunteers.

3. Legitimate reasons for post deletion can only be:
   a) potentially libellous statements
   b) overtly racist or sexist remarks
   c) personal attacks

3. Legitimate reasons for amending a post can only be:
   a) to delete personal information given in a post
   b) to delete web links to pornographic or racist sites


So, out goes the 1-year rule and the naming of clones; and out goes the explaining of reasons for deletions.

Everyone OK with this?
I repeat, this is in no way intended as a set of rules for Max or anyone to follow; if they happen to follow it, it is just coincidence and common sense. It's just a "paper exercise" for us to agree how an ideal forum might be moderated - ideally.

Aleksandr

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:40 PM

"destroy the flow of threads to the point where they would be unintelligible"

What's wrong with deleteing theads? If they're worth discussion, they'll be started again...   What's the big deal?

"As for one-year terms... I certainly disagree with it."
Here here!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,katlaughing coming through the backdoor
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:42 PM

Thanks, Spaw, for posting those. Well-written, imo. BTW, maybe you should give some of those oats to el Greko...might help the Appy, too!

Thanks, Joe.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,8:56
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:44 PM

I said ridiculous because those propasals (3 and 4) are so.


Regarding number 5 - you said:

Legitimate reasons for amending a post can only be:
   a) to delete personal information given in a post
   b) to delete web links to pornographic or racist sites

therefore any other corrections - such as fixing broken links - adding informational links, cross-linking trhreads, adding posted midi file links, etc, etc. would not be legitimate. Believe it or not most editing that occurs is NOT in any manner done as censorship.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Xander
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:55 PM

OK, Guest 02:44PM, if I change the word "amending" to "censoring" we should be OK. Editing for clarity or information is not censorship.

Aleksandr

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,WYSIWYG
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:58 PM

Xander, one reality of Mudcat (and every forum I've ever visited) is that many of the thread's posters do not read all of the posts preceding their own. Sometimes they do not even read the FIRST post! So people who flame often end up being addressed about it, long after it has been cleared up. C'est la Vie Cyber!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 02:58 PM

The mods/admin don't NEED a reason to "Amend" or "Censor" this place... It's THEIR place... they can do whatever they want here...

If you don't like that, don't come here...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Xander
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:04 PM

Guest 02:58PM, I did say that these rules are not for Mudcat, but for an ideal forum run ideally. Your point is pointless, therefore.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:07 PM

Xander, you still seem to be operating on the idea that there is a "legitimate" reason or whatever.   It's not a democracy. The first amendment has nothing to do with the net. If the admin says it goes, it goes. There is no "only" about it.

I've been here since '98 and watched the place change a lot. The one way it hasn't changed is that Max has always wanted (and gotten from his elves) a light touch on issues of editing posts. You are more than free to suggest whatever you want to Max and if he goes that way, he goes that way. At the present time though, he seems happy enough with where things are. I doubt he wanted to have to muck about with the MG character, but there ya' go. No explanation needed.

My one suggestion to Joe might be a simple "edited" instead of the BLEEP.....but the bleep is cute Joe.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:09 PM

BTW.....your ideal forum would be as Shambles states. No real rules needed.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Xander
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:11 PM

But surely it's OK to dream about an ideal world, even if we don't live in a democracy? And it's OK to compare ourselves to democratic establishments, even if we don't live in a democracy? I never claimed any "legitimacy". Just expressing a dream and a hope.

If that's OK with you, that is.;¬}

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,gnu
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:18 PM

Isn't that what IS here? EXTREMELY limited rules? Almost none, it seems, by times. It seems the "community" polices itself, as this thread, and others, demonstrate.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:18 PM

No, I'm sorry it isn't. You'll have to pledge allegiance to me and agree to change bedpans at the NYCFTTS for a two year period. That was the requirements for original clique members and the Posse is the same. BTW, the original clique wound up with several hundred members and that was 6 years ago. I'm still backlogged on bedpan changers but I am thinking we may need to put someone on stall mucking.............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,El Greko
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:21 PM

Where do you want this bucketful of manure, Spaw?
And remember, you said I could ride at the front today - I'm sick of eating everyone else's dust at the back.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:23 PM

'Spaw - you got a spots with the trots? I keep telling you - you can't feed them on nothing but sweet-feed. They are *designed* to eat hay. Let them!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:23 PM

It is the way it is.

1) Some posts get deleted. Live with it.

2) The place is a cast-iron sonuvabitch to access at various times because something is wrong and no one knows what.

3) I really wish I could give a shit anymore, but I don't. The fucking silence is deafening.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Xander
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:29 PM

Brucie,

1) I am living with it, thank you
2) Agreed
3) Yes, 52-messages-in-a-day's worth of silence...

Aleksandr

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:49 PM

"I did say that these rules are not for Mudcat"
You did, and I missed that... sorry...

"for an ideal forum run ideally"
Then it's never even to BE real, so discussion is pointless...

Like all other forms of omphaloskepsis

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:51 PM

I guess I'm bothered by the whole idea of establishing a set of rules for the administration of Mudcat. It's the same legalistic philosophy that is pervasive in most the posts from Shambles. In general, we believe that the intelligence and good will of our participants will keep things pleasant and peaceful here. When things get out of hand, Max and Jeff and I use a variety of tactics to bring things under control, including the occasional use of volunteers Max has chosen because he thinks they are people with good judgment. We operate under the rules of common sense.

Some people don't believe in conmmon sense, and they believe that every act will go astray unless it is governed exactly and specifically by law. They believe that law is always superior to intellect and judgment. We've never operated that way here. I know it makes the legalists very uncomfortable, but that's the way we do things.

So, Mudcat is an experiment in operating things under the flexible principles of judgment, intelligence, trust, and good will. I suppose it would be nice to have an experiment in legalism, operating all things under the impartiality of law. But you really can't have both at the same site.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:51 PM

Xander,

My ststement was general and not at all addressed to you. And the messages per day are my business, not yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 03:53 PM

"the intelligence and good will of our participants will keep things pleasant and peaceful"

HA!hahahahahahaha

That's funny Joe...

" rules of common sense"
It's been my experience, not just here, but all over, that such a thing is neither very common, nor does it have much sense...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:01 PM

If one thinks twice before posting, there is no need to apologize.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:03 PM

I'd be happy to think twice, if I saw much evidence that anyone was thinking ONCE!

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:08 PM

Of course, Clinton. You always know best.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:10 PM

Like I said above Joe, Max has always wanted a light touch. And it's for that reason that I am constantly amazed that these discussions go on around here. Thatset of rules I posted above is very common around the net and they work. But here we are with a light touch approach and we have folks griping and complaining.

I think some folks would bitch if they were hung with a new rope.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:12 PM

Glad yer starting to grok that Joe!

:-P

Heh

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Bill D
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:19 PM

"..So, Mudcat is an experiment in operating things under the flexible principles of judgment, intelligence, trust, and good will."

and like all experiments, the controls must constantly be re-evaluated....total freedom is a fine idea until it gets abused, and then ....well, you put locks on your doors, and hire cops, and have a juducial system of some sort....and then you worry about honest locksmiths, complain about the police force, and debate the rules for appointing judges.

What this place is, is not a 'democracy', but a sort of experiment in "benevolent dictatorship"

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:21 PM

48rt5 697 q43 pw0qwZ

translation of above is a simple substitution code based on the keyboard

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:30 PM

Thought the banner ad at the bottom of the page currently might be of interest Here it is


Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: jacqui.c
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:46 PM

Nice one Stu!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 04:57 PM

Hi Xander

I don't mean to be combatative, but are you a 9 year old little girl?

anyone know what's for dinner tonight?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:06 PM

Actually, by and large the light touch has worked incredibly well over 98% of my experience here. The other 2 % is the extremist cases. By far the majority of transactions have been very much self-regulating as Joe describes it. I only know of three or four out of thousands, really, who were so obstreperous and cantankerous and antagonistic that they ruined the atmosphere for others to the point the admins had to step in.

People are for the most part interested in continuing to communicate and will manage themselves accordingly. That's in general. Everyone has a few exceptional moments, and every group has a couple of chronic exceptions. For the rest the occasional bumps are easily gotten through.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:09 PM

What Spaw said in his last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:10 PM

Think Joe has his running shoes on?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:17 PM

Martin,
no, I am not a 9 year old little girl (or big girl for that matter). Should I be?

Aleksandr

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:27 PM

No, MG, I don't think Joe needs running shoes, but, perhaps, you might. I think you don't even have the brains of a nine year old girl. She would get the point. And you should know by now, your balls are for dinner tonight, even though some of us are trying to save them, against our better judgement. Could you be any more arrogant?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:29 PM

Just asking?

What do you think is an "overtly racist remark."

Are Jews a race?

Are Moslems?

How about homosexuals?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:56 PM

As for Mr. Shambles, you will note that we allow him to say exactly what he wants to say - over and over again, ad nauseam. That doesn't mean that we have to bow down and thank him every time he heaps abuse on us.

The idea of Joe or 'we' stating what 'they' will allow - on part of the site set aside by Max for invited contributions - is new to this long-term poster. Had that ever been the case when I started - I and many others would have never contributed in the first place.

Perhaps Joe you can provide us with some of the evidence of this "abuse" I heap on you? The moral of our volunteers should be 'never let the truth spoil a good character assassination'. If this current 'system' was anyway near what its practitioners and their supporters claimed for it – would there really be any need for them to use such tactics to defend it and oppose even the slightest suggested change?

The abusive personal attacks that 'you' indulge in from your privileged position and incite others to make upon me and the example set by this - can easily be evidenced. It can be easily evidenced that my 'crime' is simply to hold and express an opinion on a public discussion forum.

Perhaps rather than being subject to libel like this - I should be given some credit for NEVER responding in kind to stuff like this (there is more).

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:01 AM
Max, Jeff, and Joe were off doing other things today, and missed this one. It's a personal attack, and it isn't allowed. Since so many have posted to it, I guess I won't delete it - but I will close it. This is one of the "no-brainers" that the Clones should have deleted early on, no matter what Shambles thinks. Clones, don't let Shambles care you off - you're doing a good job, but you should have deleted this and told us about it.
Bob, I'm sorry this happened.
Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:29 AM
I could delete Bob's name, but I doubt that would do any good. the damage has been done. The thread should have been deleted as soon as it appeared, and I'm sorry that didn't happen.
But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation.
Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12-Jun-04 - 03:23 AM
Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying.
-Joe Offer-

The facts are ALL on the forum and can easily be refreshed. This will show posters if any trust is misplaced?

Censorship on Mudcat

As For Catspaw's posted Rules.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws.

A look at the thread I linked to will show that nearly all of Catspaw's post there will break these rules..........So bring it on.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:59 PM

Gawd, none of you will ever know how much I wish I still did drugs. Shambles, if yer taking drugs, stop. If you aren't, start. PLEEZE.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:00 PM

I spoke too soon

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:05 PM

Shambles, I will fuckin' marry you and bear your children if you will STOP.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: gnu
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:05 PM

I tried to open that thread. It does not exist. Where can I link in? Shambles?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: number 6
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:09 PM

* yawn* ... I should really get back to the real world and do something with my life.

Maybe go to the Mall and participate in a marketing poll.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:18 PM

Shambles, that's a serious proposal. Really. You need a life away from censorship. Let me be the one to take you away from all this.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:22 PM

Gnu - Do you mean this one?

Pesonal attack thread please delete?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:24 PM

Hell hath no fury like a man scorned.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: gnu
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 06:48 PM

Thanks Shambles. I scanned a few posts briefly. I tried to add it to my Tracers but couldn't. I copied the link and will read it when I get a chance.

I must say that I haven't had the time to review all of these threads dealing with this topic. Actually, nor have I had the inclination... I have a few other things that take up my time, so to speak. Having said that, I have given my opinion about the fact that it is a forum provided by a private individual whose focus for this site is the preservation and promotion of blues and folk.

I simply mirror what others have more eloquently said when I say, "Play nice. Mind your manners (but, be yourself - that's what makes it fun). And, don't take shit from anyone." My little, old, gray haired mother taught me that last one.

My proposal would reflect what I believe Max's is... what the Café is really all about, in the end... self-censorship.

Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:16 PM

Heh! Boy, I can hardly wait for Spaw's next offensive post. With any luck it will be abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, AND sexually-oriented...all at the same time! He is soooo awful. He oughta be put under some sort of restraining order, I think. 20 years solitary at the NYCFTTS would be a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:25 PM

Bring on your Shatner wannabes Hawkster. Plenty of room for them at the NYCFTTS....and a place there as well for a broke-dick mamalucca like yourself!!!

Actually....and this for Shambles as well......I've been hanging out over at the Speed Boards for about a year and a half with just shy of 4000 posts and I've only been zapped about 12 or 15 times and almost all of those were as a part of some thread that got zapped because some others went too "far afield."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:37 PM

Well, all broke-dick mamaluccas eventually need a safe port in a storm, right? It's comforting to know that the NYCFTTS is out there, serving as a final refuge for us anal-retentive types who can't keep our mouths shut or our fingers off the keyboard....we who simply MUST share our every thought with hundreds of people we'll probably never meet. By golly, I'm about ready to bust into tears here, just thinking about how a room has been reserved for ME at the NYCFTTS for when I finally lapse into total, absolute, driveling inanity and chuckle-headed uselessness. Yesirree. Any time now...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:50 PM

My proposal would reflect what I believe Max's is... what the Café is really all about, in the end... self-censorship.

I agree. But you will see many posts that will not agree. For some of the worst culprits maintain this self-censorship is just too difficult for them to manage - even when so many are already doing this and by doing so - providing the space for them to indulge. themselves.

But if this example is not first set, practiced and encouraged by those few here who would feel qualified to judge the rest of us - it is not going to happen is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:51 PM

You'll love Man.......Great view and a corner room to boot!!! The rooms on either side are Shatner to the east and Neil himself to the north. Drool cups are in the hallway........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 07:54 PM

Wow. Even better than I had dreamed! I hope I get to see Neil playing his electric guitar now and then.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:03 PM

Did you catch Neil playing with the Pretenders on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction broadcast ? He LOOKED like he was awake.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 08:59 PM

Keep it up Shambles.

Censorship here is at an all time high.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:29 PM

Amos, have a look at the members' names. You'll see LOTS of people who used to post really great MUSIC threads and some BS who are no longer seen around here. Sure, they may still read, but they do not share anymore and it is Mudcat's loss, bigtime. Whether it is a small percentage you've seen cause problems or not, it's been enough to run off a great many of the best of what Mudcat was and still could be.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 10:44 PM

and from a post earlier in this particluar thread:

Date: 30 Mar 05 - 01:06 PM

When you post to a privately owned website (which the MudCat Cafe is)

"You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should they see fit" (edited)

Just as when you are on private property the owner has the right to ask you to leave - and anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves.

makes sense to me..

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:35 AM

So, the wedding's off, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:39 AM

Xander writes:
> Everyone OK with this?
> I repeat, this is in no way intended as a set of rules for Max
> or anyone to follow; if they happen to follow it, it is just
> coincidence and common sense. It's just a "paper exercise" for us > to agree how an ideal forum might be moderated - ideally.

No, I'm not ok with this. It's Max's site and he gets to say what goes on and I'm ok with that. I don't see why it's any more common sense than what already happens, and yes, I have read the previous posts, threads and arguments about this so there's no need to repeat them for my benefit. Don't forget, your ideal is not everybody's ideal.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:17 AM

So - one person's dream is another one's nightmare. Our ideals do not match. Not surprising really, and I suppose in that diversity lies part of the beauty of this world. Just as long as we allow each other the right to have our different dreams and different ideals. A little bit of tolerance goes a long way.

Yet time and again, I tried to focus this thread on a conversation about ways for a forum to govern itself, only for the thread to degenerate into a mix of mild abuse, not-invented-here kind of mistrust, peppered with liberal doses of posses and horse manure. Obviously, something around this subject gets people's goats. What is it? In the end, all I was trying to do is reconcile some members of this forum whose ideas on the subject were closer (I thought) than they themselves appeared to believe.

I wonder - I really do wonder: Would the same vehemence and effort have been expended if I had started a thread on, say, the merits of playing "Jimmy crack corn" in the key of F-horrible or B-awful? Something tells me that they wouldn't; talking about censorship is "sexier", it seems.

As for my dream, as this is a music site (as I am reminded)I''l just quote a refrain I once heard (as close as I can remember it):
"I will not give up on my dream
And if I fail I'll keep on trying
My head I will not bend in crying
Against the current I will swim
I will not give up on my dream."


Aleksandr

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 02:21 AM

...and before someone says "If it aint broke, don't fix it": Martin Gibson and Shambles, to name but two, claim different.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 03:47 AM

Just as when you are on private property the owner has the right to ask you to leave - and anyone who thinks differently is kidding themselves. makes sense to me..

Not sure if many would argue that. However, if the owner issues an open invitation to the public - with no dress codes - do fellow guests have the right (half-way through the evening) to introduce a dress code of their own and judge who comes and goes?

Max did not impose rules or decide on matters of his personal taste and that is why so many good, strange and creative people came to the party and shaped the forum the fine place it just about remains - by their contributions.

Reserving the right of the owner to ask you to leave is not the same as fellow posters NOW imposing their personal taste as a matter of routine and shaping our forum by what is closed, deleted or imposed without a poster's knowledge or permission.

This shaping is done under the cover of protecting us all from abusive personal attacks - whilst our volunteers set the example of indulging themselves in abusive personal attacks - responding in kind to them and inciting others to do this whilst finding it funny. All this has no effect on preventing abusive personal attacks from being posted.

It could be argued that defending such obvious hypocrisy - actually encourages such things. While the forum that Max opened for the ALL public - is stolen from - them by a few who refuse to consider even the smallest change suggested by the public.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 03:54 AM

Max's forum was here before some of these insulting posters and will probably still be here when they grow tired and leave.

It still remains Max's forum and as far as I am concerned, what he says, goes. He and his helpers have tried their best to keep this a pleasant place for all, as it evolves in its own way, but there appear to be some who entered freely of their own will, who want to force it into their image. Mudcat is not your forum. If you want a forum where anti social behaviour is quashed, censorship is not allowed and all are free to speak their minds, then go start it... but I think you'll find you're looking for an oxymoron.

All things evolve, but they don't always have to evolve downwards.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 03:57 AM

Roger,

assuming for a moment that you are right about the "shaping of the forum" by some members, what would the motive be for such an action? Because without a motive, the rest of the conspiracy theory falls apart. So - who benefits?

As for the amusement of some members: I think it's down to the fact that they believe such an exercise to be both unnecessary and nit-picking (in the context of there being so many more important thread subjects in this forum). That's all, nothing more sinister than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 04:07 AM

100! Beat you, Ted.

Unless I'm censored...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 04:08 AM

Fools rush in!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 04:44 AM

A bunch of us got together and killed Max years ago so we could takeover the Mudcat and impose a sinister dress code.

I swear Sham, does the word paranoia have any meaning to you?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 05:18 AM

....yeah, but we made a really big mistake when we chose Spaw to be our arbiter of fashion...
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 05:28 AM

Oh well held Dave the gnome. I spotted this thread at 98posts, but didn't bother trying for the 100th as I get deletd.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 05:33 AM

Fools - THIS will be post 100, after my mates in the inner circle delete 5 previous posts. Any posts will do, no justification needed.

Spaw, can I join the posse with my donkey?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Alba
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 05:33 AM

Spaw is and will remain our Fashion Guru Joe.
His offbeat, dare I say quirky, talent with accessories is truly magical.
I am looking forward to the launch of his Spring Collection...any day now Spaw am I right?
Best Wishes
Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 05:55 AM

El G, feel free to ride your donkey. He'll feel right at home as there is no shortage of jackasses around here.

As for the latest in fashion, I decided that it is true that we should be setting the example so I'm ordering a huge supply of ill-fitting plaid shirts which I know will be a big hit with everyone.(:<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 05:56 AM

assuming for a moment that you are right about the "shaping of the forum" by some members, what would the motive be for such an action? Because without a motive, the rest of the conspiracy theory falls apart. So - who benefits?

It is you who has introduced the word 'conspiracy' - I make no such claim. If they were such a thing - you would probably be right in suggesting there would need to be some motive (other than just control for the sake of control). This fairly recent 'take-over' of our forum - is not a conspiracy - it is a cock-up - as I have clearly evidenced.

Volunteers are still deleting the same things they shouldn't be doing and without Joe's knowledge - as they were in 1998. And exactly the same excuses for it are given (by Joe) - instead of ensuring that they are not repeated. But still the 'spin' than many still blindly accept - goes on. So does the abuse of anyone who tries to point and evidence the reality, holds a different view or suggests even the slightest change.

It is a fact that the shaping of our forum by imposed closures, deletions and general tinkering with things that are no one's business but the original poster's - now goes on under the cover of censorship. I don't think or suggest that this cover is intentional but this censorship is supposed to protect us from abusive personal attacks but it clearly does not. Possibly because our volunteers are too busy eleswhere tinkering and nit-picking with 'small-beer' that are really none of their business - like deleting Flamenco Ted's 100th post clams (because some people are said to find these posts obnoxious).

As for the amusement of some members: I think it's down to the fact that they believe such an exercise to be both unnecessary and nit-picking (in the context of there being so many more important thread subjects in this forum). That's all, nothing more sinister than that.

Again, I did not suggest that there was anything sinister in this. But if the idea of all this censorship and secrecy is to prevent abusive personal attacks - it is counter-productive for known volunteers in responsible positions - like Mick to set the example of encouraging posters like John in Hull - to think that abusive personal attacks in posts like - 'Shambles why don't you F*** ***' - are in any way witty or entertaining.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:06 AM

Subject: RE: Censor Mudcat--Y or N?(NM)(not music thread)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Jul 99 - 02:22 PM

Drop it, Shambles. Apparently, some sort of misdirected censorship did happen once, and the perpetrator was aparently a JoeClone® in training. It happened one time, and probably won't happen again. OK?
-Joe Offer-

Sadly it just keeps on happening and being excused. And will keep on happening until it is addressed.

---

Yes, it happened last week, when Ted's 200th post waas deleted. I can't remember the time before that. I also acknowledge that there was an unauthorized deletion in 1999. I'm sure there were a few in between - but not many. Mistakes and miscommunication happens.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:11 AM

Fair answers, Roger. And I note that you answered both my questions (just a jokey reference to earlier claims to the contrary).

You wtill use the word 'spin', of course, which indicates direction/purpose. But perhaps I am nitpicking now.

So at the end of it all, the grievance is more about the behaviour of some members towards you (and others), is that it? If that's all there is to it, and the whole matter of censorship just a side-issue (why they delete some offensive remarks and not others), the air could be cleared with a smile and a communal singaround. It only takes goodwill and forgiveness. "Eye for an eye" just results in so much blindness.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:35 AM

I am quite prepared to put any past disputes behind me and not to dwell on them - but I am more concerned about the present and the future of our forum.

The following is an example of what I mean when I refer to the shaping our forum. The volunteer in question - who has imposed their judgement upon my musical contribution - without my knowledge and against my wishes - has gone on to state their personal taste would be that all Song Challenges containing many fine original songs, contributed by many different posters - be confined to the B/S nom-music section of our forum. I suspect that it is just a matter of time before this and similar judgements based on one person's taste - are put into action.......

Camilla and Charlie were lovers

Should the personal tastes of one or two posters really be shaping the present and future direction of our forum to the extant that they do now? By imposed judgement closures, deltions and general tinkering with the contributions of their fellow posters rather than being shaped BY the invited contributions of ALL posters?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:41 AM

Shambles, as far as I understand it, it can not happen in the same way now as it did in that post you quoted. A clone may be a little "trigger happy" but Joe now is able to review deletions and reinstate posts. Something that was impossible back then - once a post was deleted, that was it.

You still fail to explain to me why you keep on blaming Joe for a system Max is in charge of.

If you can explain to me how you belive it is that Joe has power over Max or why Max allows Joe to run riot, you may make a little sense but while you persist in blaming the middle man for acting under guidelines set by Max you will make no sense whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:43 AM

Well, Roger, the volunteer you mention expressed an opinion; no problem there, he/she is entitled to it.

And even if they acted on it, surely it is of minimal impact?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:46 AM

Yes, EG, you were nitpicking.
And is not your "eye for an eye" sentence a veiled attack on some people's religion?
Aleksandr

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: mandoleer
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:47 AM

As a newcomer who hasn't seen any of this happening yet, but who has read this thread with interest and despair, may I quote the WW I cartoon caption "If you knows of a better 'ole, then go to it!" And add to that, "If you can't find a better 'ole, then dig one yourself". I would have thought that the Ideal Forum would only exist in the mind of the person who thought up the ideal, as once others started posting to it it would cease to be ideal as they would have different ideas. Although I suppose that in certain areas, such as possibly synchronised swimming, there would be not too much divergence of opinion or room for original thought. (OK, I can't see the point of synchronised swimming, just as I can't understand the rules of, or point of, bridge.) There's room for many opinions here. MudCat isn't North Korea or the Vatican where opinion comes down from the top. Be nice.....

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 06:48 AM

Such actions may be of minimal impact to you, EG, but not to others, who care about the continuing existence and well-being of this fine forum. Where does it end? Perhaps one day Song Competition threads will be "outlawed" alltogether.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:05 AM

"If you can explain to me how you belive it is that Joe has power over Max or why Max allows Joe to run riot, you may make a little sense but while you persist in blaming the middle man for acting under guidelines set by Max you will make no sense whatsoever."

THAT is the $64,000 question Jon. Hope you get an answer.....20 to 1 you don't.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:23 AM

Well, Roger, the volunteer you mention expressed an opinion; no problem there, he/she is entitled to it.

This is the problem. Does an opinion of personal taste expressed by a volunteer in the course of their editing action become official Mudcat Policy?

This personal taste was expressed in brown writing and not automatically refreshing the thread - an option not open to the rest of us.

What I would expect and have constantly requested - to prevent confusion - is that the personal opinions of our volunteers are only expressed as conventional posts which do always refresh the thread and any editing comments confine themselves only to the facts and do not refresh the thread. Not - I would have thought a too controversial request?

You still fail to explain to me why you keep on blaming Joe for a system Max is in charge of.

I post my comments, suggestion and questions openly and publicly because these concern all the contributors to the whole forum. But Joe Offer is the one who takes on the public responsibility of answering and defending the current set-up.

I don't bully barmaids either....

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:35 AM

But Joe Offer has answered you time and time again and he isn't going to change. Why don't you take the matter higher? You have had 6 years to prove your method has not worked.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:43 AM

the forum that Max opened for the ALL public - is stolen from - them by a few (Shambles)

Go and tell Max. Any rational deliberation should tell you that either Max knows about and approves of the way Joe etc. handle the daily activity or he doesn't know and would object if only he knew. If he approves your repetitions are pointless if he doesn't know you address the wrong audience.

You still fail to explain to me why you keep on blaming Joe for a system Max is in charge of.
(Jon)

I don't bully barmaids either.... (Shambles in response to Jon)

In which way are we supposed to understand that comparison? Who's the barmaid? Shouldn't you complain to the owner of the bar if your repeated complaints to the one in daily charge (head waiter, for instance) are not heard? And, if I may add to the picture of the bar, a customer always loudly complaining about the same things tends to get on the nerves of the other customers after a while.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:47 AM

The Shambles said quite succinctly:

"This shaping is done under the cover of protecting us all from abusive personal attacks - whilst our volunteers set the example of indulging themselves in abusive personal attacks - responding in kind to them and inciting others to do this whilst finding it funny. All this has no effect on preventing abusive personal attacks from being posted.

It could be argued that defending such obvious hypocrisy - actually encourages such things."

I'm in 100% agreement with this description. It's dead on.

Then El Greko asks:

"assuming for a moment that you are right about the "shaping of the forum" by some members, what would the motive be for such an action?"

Power, control, and higher status within the group's hierarchy. Those are the only things that matter to some people, but especially to those who seek positions of some authority where they can lord their power, control, and status over the group. Flaunting it. That is the problem with Mudcat. We have some dysfunctional egos seeking power, control, and higher status in this group. They have been placed in those positions by Max, who has turned the day to day running of the forum over to Joe and the clones because he can't (and obviously by the way this sucker keeps going down, won't) be bothered with it.

It reminds me of "Lord of the Flies" actually.

In every group of humans, there is an elite group of "rulers" who lord it over the others. Here at Mudcat, that group starts at the top with Max, includes pene azul (secret power behind Max's throne), Joe the administrator, and the cops--catspaw, katlaughing, Jeri, Big Mick, and god only knows who else at this point.

Some of us figured this out quite some time ago (and more than a few have left the forum because of it), and sometimes remark upon it. Many of us have ended up in direct conflict with one of the above elite group at some time or another, over petty things like Shambles mentions. Always this has been done under the guise of saving members from the embarrassment of personal attacks (which to many of us, is idiotic, pointless, and needlessly censorial).

Years ago all this tinkering began because of a handful of crybaby members here who didn't want to be embarrassed by "personal attacks" (which have never been adequately defined here, not to mention is a "rule" which is applied VERY selectively--and most often applied to those who have dared to criticize the running of the forum or it's authoritarian owner, administrator, and moderators with the too cutesy name "Joe Clone"). I accurately predicted then it would be a slippery slope down the hill to the insidious censorship we now see.

Just like the "guest" log-in was an idiotic, paranoid response to people having their Mudcat names used by other posters for the purpose of embarrassing them, so too has this insidious censorship been an idiotic, paranoid response to members being personally attacked by peope outside the elite group of people who run the forum. And make no mistake people, the changes to the log-in and the censorship of posts under the guise of "personal attack" were purely defensive actions taken by a ruling elite here who thinks they should have iron clad online identity "names" protection, and not be able to be criticized, mocked, or otherwise made a joke of in this forum.

Both responses were abuses of power, and have only led to more dissatisfaction among the rank and file.

Anyone who doubts my description of this forum might have a glance at the excellent Flame Warrior website of a seasoned discussion forum veteran. It is the absolute best netizen guide to discussion forum politics online, bar none. WARNING: The Mudcat Royals here do NOT find this site amusing. Which makes it even funnier.

I long ago accepted Flame Warriors as the only Mudcat relief I would ever get from the downright obnoxiousness that is part and parcel of this place. The link was given to me by a fellow Mudcat guest who left this place long ago, as a means of explaining the forum's dysfunctional dynamics to me.

Like I said earlier, or elsewhere, or whatever, there is no chance of this group being reformed. No chance whatsoever. People here love the dysfunctionality of this place--and it is SO obvious that the worst offenders are here because they thrive in dysfunctional settings like this.

So you can take Mudcat or leave it. Or stay here, and keep tormenting the tormentors to the best of your ability. And please--keep working hard at tormenting the Mudcat Royals and their bootlicking minions at every opportunity. We all need the entertainment.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:50 AM

Well Roger I think you could have chosen a better example than the one provided by your last link. In that instance your response was both petty, and peurile, not to mention groundless. Do you look through other people's windows, then knock on their door and criticise the way they arrange their furniture?
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: dwditty
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:51 AM

Poop, I say

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:52 AM

Why don't you take the matter higher?

What makes you think that I have not done this?

Jon - Max may well be a problem for you - if so you contact him. I will continue to post publicly and if Max wishes to respond - I am sure that he will do so.

Max is NOT the problem. All of US are the problem and it is up to US to sort out the problems that WE cause. This by the use of self-censorship, tolerance and the acceptance of the reality of a site that is open to the public.

You have had 6 years to prove your method has not worked.

William Wilberforce bored everyone by writing pretty much the same the same things to the same people - for 18 years - before slavery was finally abolished here - largely as a result of his efforts.....

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: jacqui.c
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 07:55 AM

Too true Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:01 AM

Shambles I repeat, I have no issues with the censorship/ editorial policy here.

All of US are the problem and it is up to US to sort out the problems that WE cause

And how exactly do WE do that? Self censorhip is a good idea but there is no way WE can enforce that on anyone else. I would imagine that while Max (Iand I think you would find Joe) may well prefer it that way, the reality is that it alone just does not work here. Are you suggesting to me that Max empowers people to make editorial judgements once in a while because he belives they are not needed?

Another of your gripes has been anonymous volunteers. How are We going to over-ride Mudcat policy to change that?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:09 AM

Ah, another day in paradise with the Mudcat Royals and their loyal minions!

Everyone is visiting this thread. Now if we could just stir up the hive a bit, things might liven up around here.

And now that I think of it, Martin Gibson is truly a wimp. Not only has he not managed to get himself banned here, he hasn't even been able to stir up the hive!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:39 AM

GUEST,

I bookmarked the Flame Warrior website some time ago. I refer to it often, when I think Mudcat mirrors some of the characterizations portrayed there. The dynamics of a forum like this, as seen through the Flame Warrior lens, are fascinating.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:48 AM

Oh and Shambles:

What makes you think that I have not done this?

Well you would be even weirder than I already think you are if you have done that.

You might know for example that Max does approve of Joe Offer's actions in which case your stance and position you seem to put Joe in would be even more bizzare.

You might know for example that Max didn't know what was going on in which case one would have to question why you persist now Max does know.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:58 AM

Nameless.

I love those Flame Warrior caricatures, and I think your ponitfications are a bit stretched.

Here's one, for example:

"Rebel Without a Clue's deep seated and infantile hostility to authority motivates his random and seemingly gratuitous attacks on list owners, Admins, Nannies or anyone else who attempts to maintain order and civility in discussion forums. Differing markedly from Rebel Leader, he is unattached to any cause other than petulance for its own sake, and will therefore seldom inspire general insurrection. In his frequent and ineffectual attacks on the established order he will often cite the Bible, or the US Constitution to support incoherent arguments. Rebel Without a Clue NEVER reads forum FAQs , and loudly decries as fascism any enforcement whatsoever of forum rules."

The great thing about those caricatures is somehow the guy knows everyone on the Cat!! Choose one that fits and laugh at yourself. It's a lot easier than whinging about others!! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: kendall
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:01 AM

Guest, I know of many members who have left because of the juvenile behavior of certain foul mouth malcontents. I know of no members who have left because of censorship.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone can say anything they wish in stating an opinion BUT, personal attacks should be deleted. They have no place among civilized people. If you must resort to gutter language to put your point across, go back to school and learn some English. Now, argue with me if you wish, that's acceptable, but name calling is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Big Mick
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:02 AM

Those of you who continue to debate are very silly. This person continues to try and set the predicate that this is "our" forum. It is not now, never has been and never will be. Max owns it, maintains it and decides what it will or will not be. This person continues to draw you into the discourse based on incorrect assertions, has made it clear that he will not accept any answer other than what he wants to hear. It seems to me that those that encourage him are no less guilty than he is.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:09 AM

Guest 7:47

congratulations! I believe in a single post you have managed to cram more BS then the entire MOAB thread - which is over 7000 posts and DEDICATED to BS.

If you are not currently employed as a spin doctor by some politician - you should look into employment in the field - you obviously have the qualifications.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:13 AM

" I suspect that it is just a matter of time before this and similar judgements based on one person's taste - are put into action......."

wowee! Not only are you disagreeing with what HAS been done, you are complaining in advance about the future! I have to give you 2 extra points for finding problems before they happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:34 AM

The public discussion forum is ours. Max's stated role in this is only to "facilitate". Which is not the same thing as total control.

From: Max - PM
Date: 10 Mar 00 - 12:54 AM

OK, gargoyle, you got it. I tried to give your membership back months ago, but you apparently never got my message. Your tactics are crude, you are often inappropriate and rude, and I obviously cannot ever agree with you for the simple fear that anyone would think that your type of efforts could or should be effective, but you are undoubtedly a knowledgeable member of our community. My motive for your membership? People want to be able to talk to you… and as ambiguous as I may seem here, my sole function is to facilitate that… because that is what The Mudcat is all about.

May as well wheel this quote out (yet) again. With apologies to those who may have it read before.

Subject: RE: Explain the BS rules
From: Max - PM
Date: 26 Oct 99 - 12:40 AM

Since you are with us, you get to help us make the rules. Of late it seems that it is used for non-music related questions, comments, thoughts and stories. It may be like just a light conversation piece, or just killing time, or getting through a bad day, or anything non-academic (if you will). Or, just don't use it. It is what you make it. Don't sweat the rules, cause there aint none.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 09:59 AM

that's what you get for making a friendly remark at 12:40 AM 5½ years ago...ammunition for nitpicking. The part I see is "you get to HELP us make the rules..." Since then it has been discovered that there do need to be a few rules, and I guess Max has the right to re-think his offhand remark. I'll tell you this: If there were literally NO rules, this place would be full of not only trolling, hate messages, personal attacks and MUCH bigger flame wars, but spam also.

If there were NO rules, you'd see all too quickly, Shambles, how the bad would drive out the good.....then you'd have your totally free, uncensored, open......and useless forum, because most of the good folks would give up--including yourself, probably. I speak only for myself, but I don't want to take the chance.

You have seen many posts from those who cite their experiences with other forums, and they ALL say this is the least 'controlled' place they know....minimal, but necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:28 AM

Shhhhhh! Mario! We like our BS at MOAB to be unadulterated by the horse's ass variety.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:34 AM

"If there were literally NO rules, this place would be full of not only trolling, hate messages, personal attacks and MUCH bigger flame wars, but spam also."

Remove "but spam also" and you have a very accurate description of this forum, ever since I've been here.

Passive aggressives, sycophants, and bullies rule the roost here. What else would anyone expect?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:34 AM

The part I see is "you get to HELP us make the rules..."

Even with these 'blinkers' on - you manage do see that we get to HELP make these rules. Much help - in the way of perfectly sensible suggestions has been offered here - and not just by me. As usual - all of it has been just been ignored or dismissed.

Such as the following.

What I would expect and have constantly requested - to prevent confusion - is that the personal opinions of our volunteers are only expressed as conventional posts which do always refresh the thread and any editing comments confine themselves only to the facts and do not refresh the thread. Not - I would have thought a too controversial request?

Either this suggestion is too controversial to be even addressed - or more likely that it is considered by most posters - as far too much common sense to even attempt to argue with?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: jeffp
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:39 AM

Or perhaps it's too inane to be deemed worthy of discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:44 AM

In most other forums, when a mod makes a deletion or a change, if ANYTHING at all is stated, it is within the post or what's left of it. Standard thing to do Shambles and there is no point in starting a thread or even making another post about it.

And BTW, please DO rethink your meaning of facillitate. It means to make things happen with as much ease as possible. It doesn't mean to stand aside and say to hell with it.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 10:46 AM

LOL at jeffy........Thanks ..... I needed the laugh! They say truth hurts but in this case I gotta' tell ya' they're wrong!!! Thanks again.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 11:00 AM

Or perhaps it's too inane to be deemed worthy of discussion.

History will tell us that nothing on this forum is ever judged too inane to be worthy of discussion.

In most other forums, when a mod makes a deletion or a change, if ANYTHING at all is stated, it is within the post or what's left of it. Standard thing to do Shambles and there is no point in starting a thread or even making another post about it.

Not too sure where starting another thread comes into this - that was not my suggestion?

Volunteers wish to make the point that their special position does not stop them from expressing an opinion on our forum. Many would accept this.

My point is that this individual's volunteer's personal opinion and taste should not be expressed in or in connection with an editing action - which (if anything is needed to be said) should be confined only to the facts.

Posts containing a volunteer's personal tastes and opinion can be made in the same way as everyone else.

This will prevent any possible confusion about a volunteer's personal view being seen as Official Mudcat Policy.... Is this really so radical a suggestion?

---

Your lines are drawn very rigidly, Shambles. Yes, you will sometimes see a brief quip or attempt at humor in some of my editorial remarks. Sometimes, the humor might even have a barb on it. Most Mudcatters have no problem distinguishing that from "Official Mudcat Policy." Most Mudcatters allow editors to be human. Luckily, your personal lack of humor does not dictate "Official Mudcat Policy."
Sometimes, when my editorial remarks are posted to respond to a particularly exasperating challenge from you, my response may reflect a tone of exasperation. This, too, is human. Most people are able to distinguish exasperation from "Official Mudcat Policy."
And whether it's policy or not, it would seem to be appropriate to post an editorial remark (even an exasperated one) in response to a challenge to an editorial action.
And this (click) did seem to be a perfect response to your challenge to my attempt to control the stream of personal attacks from a certain individual, since I certainly didn't need you to interfere at the time.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 11:06 AM

Shambles you are truly and unredeemably paranoid. The only rules applied here would appear to be rules of common decency, such as those that are applied in everyday social intercourse. If somebody said to my face some of the things that have been written here, I would rip their arm out from the socket and beat them to death with the soggy end. It's all about good manners, if you remember them!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 11:20 AM

(re-posting with italics corrected)

Typical Shambolic evasiveness:

In response to: "In most other forums, when a mod makes a deletion or a change, if ANYTHING at all is stated, it is within the post or what's left of it. Standard thing to do Shambles and there is no point in starting a thread or even making another post about it., Roger replies "Not too sure where starting another thread comes into this - that was not my suggestion?".

That is what annoys people more than anything, Roger - your eel-like slithering out of the way of some questions and answering instead with another (irrelevant to the topic) question.

And as for "My point is that this individual's volunteer's personal opinion and taste should not be expressed in or in connection with an editing action - which (if anything is needed to be said) should be confined only to the facts.": Joe Offer posted a responso to this less than a month ago - I saw it. Yet you make this point again (twice today on this thread alone). Please don't repeat it any more. Nobody came out to agree with you. I, for one, am happy with Joe's logical explanation.

And anyway, Jeffp is right - the point is inane.

So, Roger, on the strength of this post alone, you seem to be repeating inane points, while at the same time evading questions.

I allow my luggage to relax (rest my case). Would that you would relax some of your baggage too.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 11:22 AM

Police too are entitled to express their opinion. Howver, there certain things people like this will not be expected to do - whilst dressed in their uniform and undertaking their duties.

So as to keep their personal opinions from being confused with those of their service.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:36 PM

I'm gettin' pretty fuckin' insulted here, Shambles. Is there gonna be a wedding or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:41 PM

Typical Shambolic evasiveness: - Playing hard to get.


Joe Offer posted a responso to this less than a month ago - I saw it.

Is this the one?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 30 Mar 05 - 05:21 AM

Shambles,
Click here
sincerely,
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:57 PM

Roger,

For the first point you make - you said it.
For the second: you know very well which response by Joe Offer I meant, so either you are having a little joke (fair enough), or something else is happening; I don't know which. Should I be offended?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: jacqui.c
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 12:59 PM

And I was so looking forward to being a bridesmaid Brucie.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 01:05 PM

I apologize for the language--I had no idea there were going to be female bridesmaids. But since the groom is totally ignoring me, I guess the wedding's off. I wanted to take the guy's mind off censorship. My heartfelt ploy didn't work. Ah well, back to the goat. At least the goat doesn't care about censorship on the 'cat.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 03:48 AM

He obviously saw the record sleeve photo somebody linked to the other day, and changed his mind!
Giok ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 04:24 AM

I am at the end of my tether. I tried time and again to have a serious discussion and here you are goading others with talk of weddings and bridesmaids.

Sometimes we deserve what we get - this could be one of those cases. How many steps from "common sense" and lack of "legalistic rules" to anarchy, though?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Alba
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 05:22 AM

326 steps according to the Road to Anarchy Manual I think but it may 325 Xander so don't quote me on that....:>)

Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 06:37 AM

For the second: you know very well which response by Joe Offer I meant, so either you are having a little joke (fair enough), or something else is happening; I don't know which. Should I be offended?

I have no idea which particular response you are referring to or where it can be found. For I and others may not have even been aware that it was made. For it may have been later inserted into another post as an editing comment intended as not to refresh the thread?

Perhaps you can provide it for us here so we can debate this response in as much detail as the question? No offence to you or anyone else was intended......

For those who may have also missed the response referred to - if you look back a few posts - you may have over-looked yet another response from Joe Offer.

You may have over-looked it because - when you last looked - it was not there. It has sneaked-in (in big-brother brown writing) - so as not to refresh the thread. But as it is now there - perhaps some attention can be given to what is said there and why it needed to be said in this (back-door) fashion?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 06:43 AM

It must be the after effect of the hen night!
G¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 06:49 AM

Xander--

If you're at the end of your tether already, you'll need a lot more rope.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 06:52 AM

Roger,

in the thread titled "This thread is closed", on 1st Feb 2005, Joe said But if I reply to a question or comment within the message where the question was asked, there's no question to whom I am responding, is there? I find that efficient and clear, and see no reason to do otherwise. It also serves to avoid refreshing threads that are contentious, even though contentious people might like to force me to refresh them.
-Joe Offer-"

In combination with his inserted comment in this thread yesterday (that editors are human too), this answers the question for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 07:32 AM

Thank you George.

BTW - Was this response made in (brown writing) in an editorial comment so as not to refresh that thread?

If you look back a little further in this thread you will find yet another inserted editorial comment (again in brown). This way of providing some form of answer - ensures that very few posters will actually see it or even be aware that it is made?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 07:52 AM

Yes, it was in brown, Roger.
I don't mind those insertions; they are done promptly as a rule, and so they are only a few posts behind the lead of the thread. If they were trying to hide them, why would they make them in the first place? If they want to respond but hide the response from others, a PM would have been more effective.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 08:28 AM

It's time to come clean. It's past 12 noon in the UK, but I kept quiet a little longer, for the sake of our brethren across the Atlantic.

I hereby retract completely and ureservedly all comments made by myself in this guise during the last 10 days or so since I "joined". Of course I still stand by everything I said in this and other threads under my normal "handle".

I didn't set out to prove anything other than the fact that we all have "buttons" that when pressed elicit predictable reactions. That is as valid for Roger as it is for Brucie or anyone else - myself included. I pressed a few buttons, and the reactions came as per the textbook. I put up a thread on censorship and all the usual suspects came to join, to the extent that the other thread on the same subject nearly fell off the bottom of the list. The humourists were humorous, and the serious ones were intense.

This little joke of mine was not directed at anyone specifically - everybody fell into the trap; in fact, I suspect that even now that I declared myself to be "false", the thread will continue under the momentum of the passions of the participants, as Susan (WYSIWIG) predicts. That's life.

But take a moment's break from the seriousness and smile at the predictability of us all.

Who am I? Ah, but that would be telling... I'll let you ponder on that for an hour or so.

Aleksandr

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 08:34 AM

I knew from your knowing comments about other Catters that you were not a new member. I suspect you are Martin Gibson, or Clinton Hambone, and I claim my 50c reward.
Giok ¦¬]
LH?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 08:37 AM

It's okay Xander.....You can still ride youir donkey up front.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 08:38 AM

Not even close, Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 08:39 AM

that's a very Greek name you have there... hmmm...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 08:40 AM

Spaw, you are a gentleman. I'll carry my shit-bucket too.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavergis
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 08:45 AM

Indeed, Freda, that alone ahould have rang bells. Xander, short for Alexander, was taken after my favourite ancient Greek hero (and a Macedonian to boot), something I have often referred to on Mudcat. Which is why Xander's entry form gives his name as Aleksandr Maximovich.

But 'spaw was first by a minute. Sharp as nails, spaw!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: freda underhill
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 08:53 AM

funny, i have been researching about Macedonia today...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 09:05 AM

It was bloody hard keeping up two personalities though... And I don't just mean the admin of having to check every time my handle before I say anything. Xander had to be a specific person, with a specific character - slightly short fuse, well-meaning, persistent and a meddler.

I didn't rank at the Maidenhead songwriting competition last night - I put it down to allowing Xander to sing my song. Of course, there were some cracking songs aired there last night too!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 09:11 AM

The main point of such an exercise (if there really was any point) was at least to prove that what is said is always far more important than placing any trust in who may be saying it (or indeed in questioning their motives).

The issues, suggestions made and the responses to them here - remain perfectly valid and just as important as they always will be.... So this thread and others on the same subject will continue...with or without any contributions from its originator... Who by these actions - has only added to the current chaos and confusion and managed to de-value serious debate on our forum even further.

If it was a joke - I can't help but wonder that the biggest joke may prove to be on and at the expense of the future credibilty of its perpetrator? What a jolly wheeze............Laugh? I nearly started.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 09:11 AM

It was bloody hard keeping up two personalities though

oh lordy - a truer post was never typed!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 09:20 AM

How 'sharp' does one really have to be?

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: El Greko - PM
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 10:55 PM

When I was barely a teenager, there was a local "village fool" in our neighbourhood. Everyone knew his "buttons": If you mentioned the name of a well-known actress, he would drool; and if you mentioned the word "knife" he would swear uncontrollably.

The poor guy could hardly make ten steps on the street before a kid, or - just as often - a grownup, would shout either or both "buttons", just to witness his inevitable reactions for the umpteenth time.

With April Fool's Day looming, I have an idea......:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 09:47 AM

Well done Roger for homing in on the start of it.

On your 09:11AM post (spooky): I agree with the first paragraph; come to think of it I agree with the other two also. It was a risk I took knowingly, as despite my efforts to date under my real handle, I feared my credibility with you has been barely above nil, so I had little to lose. It will not change my stance towards you, despite the thinly veiled judgement you just made publicly about me (joking).

But I do so wish we (all of us) could stop and laugh a little occasionally before we grab each other by the throat. Life is too important to waste on perpetual seriousness. And laughing at our own weaknesses, peculiarities and predictability is a good start.

Laughing at failed jokes is a good next step.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 10:30 AM

I did have my suspicions about Xander which was part the reason why I only made the one relply to him (the rest were to shambles). I had not detected who it was but it all seemed too convenient and the poster did seem to know a bit too much.

The only trouble is (and I hope you haven't started up again with your joke) there has been too much paranoia over here over dual identities already. Having a poster with 2 memberships has been done before in ways that upset many.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 10:43 AM

Roger...lighten up and find something that is actually productive rather than what you are doing here day by day, hour by hour on the Mudcat.
I'm not saying go away. I'm saying if you really feel so strongly about the Forum and it's Moderators ...why stay around. .???? It obviously pisses you off...so what's the point!!!!
For the sake of your sanity I would suggest finding another forum that perhaps suits your perception of Censorship. That's just a suggestion mind you not an outright bugger off.
Refusal to accept other people's help and suggestions in your quest for answers suggests that you do not wish any. Which in fact makes your posts MUTE...ramblings...POINTLESS..
Jeez Louise this dog with a bone attitude of yours about the place is like bloody Ben Hur...it goes and on and on and goes Nowhere.

I tell you what though you ain't getting much support from my corner anymore. It is just too tedious and fruitless.
Bloody hell

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,El Greko
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 10:46 AM

No, Jon - Xander's gone to bed now.
On a day such as this people ought to expect some such tricks - like Avril Betts last year. But we do get SO serious sometimes; and this subject (censorship of Mudcat) seems to bring out the worst of us all in that respect, and we lose perspective. Which makes it an ideal playground for a once-a-year smirk, if only to remind us that 3D-life has a lot more to offer and a lot more to demand than any internet forum ever could.

Which reminds me that I have spent more than 7 hours in front of the infernal screen - who's the fool now...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 10:48 AM

I tell you what though you ain't getting much support from my corner anymore. It is just too tedious and fruitless.
Bloody hell.

Thank you Joe.......

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 10:55 AM

Serious sense of humour failure there Roger!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 11:01 AM

From the following site http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/troyilium/a/taleoftroy_3.htm

Crafty Odysseus devised a plan that ultimately doomed the Trojans. Sending all the Greek ships away or into hiding, it appeared to the Trojans that the Greeks had given up. The great wooden gift the Greeks left before the walls of the city of Troy appeared to be an offering to Athena -- a peace offering. The jubilant Trojans dragged the monstrous, wheeled, wooden horse into their city to celebrate the end of the ten years of fighting.
But beware of Greeks bearing gifts!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 11:03 AM

I don't think the subject of "censorship at Mudcat" particularly worries me EG. I don't really care enough about it and even if I did wouldn't worry if it was lighter or heavier (although personally, I would be heavier handed than those in charge here).

I do have my button in these threads though and there is no denying it or me trying to pretend that some of my posts have been made both in anger and exasperation. That its the impossible structure and chain of accounability that Shambles uses in many of his arguments - I've just got fed up with it. It seems I'm not alone either. I think wolfgang summed up the flawed logic quite nicely earlier in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 11:47 AM

Are you saying that Max is not able to read the posts on the forum?

Are you saying that individual posters are not responsible for their actions?

Are you saying that as he appointed them that Max is responsible for ALL of the actions and public statements of Joe and Co - so they can do as they wish?

Are you saying that when Joe Offer uses an editorial comment to tell another poster to politly **** ***, (as in this thread) that this then becomes Max's view and Official Mudcat Policy?

I suggesting that in future - any personal opinions and comments are not made by posters in editorial comments - to avoid any confusion (and prevent any possible legal actions against Max). This is not rocket science.

The generally agreed logic in the world - that most of us live in - is that the greater individual responsibility given to people in postions of trust - the better example they are are expected to set in their persoanl behaviour. And when they fail in this - they are prepared to accept the consequences.

Here it would seem that (some of) these people expect to be able to do just as they please - as it is thought - that Max is answerable - not them.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 11:56 AM

Once again, you've got it arse-backward. They are responsible to Max, not to you or anybody else. If Max does not reprimand them for what they do, then it follows logically that Max accepts what they do. You may complain to Max, but that is pretty much the extent of your options. Other than whinging, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 12:00 PM

Last Guest has no balls.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 12:00 PM

The generally agreed logic in the world - that most of us live in - is that the greater individual responsibility given to people in postions of trust - the better example they are are expected to set in their persoanl behaviour. And when they fail in this - they are prepared to accept the consequences

You are saying that you have no responsibility therefore it is up to you to NOT set a better example.

You are doing a good job.

And of course you have already shown you are not ready to accept the consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 12:01 PM

I am aghast! I would never tell anybody, even Shambles, to

"politly **** ***."

I'm a far better speller than that. It's "politely."

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 12:14 PM

Are you saying that Max is not able to read the posts on the forum?

No.

Are you saying that individual posters are not responsible for their actions?

No.

Are you saying that as he appointed them that Max is responsible for ALL of the actions and public statements of Joe and Co - so they can do as they wish?

No.

Are you saying that when Joe Offer uses an editorial comment to tell another poster to politly **** ***, (as in this thread) that this then becomes Max's view and Official Mudcat Policy?

No

I suggesting that in future - any personal opinions and comments are not made by posters in editorial comments - to avoid any confusion (and prevent any possible legal actions against Max). This is not rocket science.

That is one of many things you have suggested.

The generally agreed logic in the world - that most of us live in - is that the greater individual responsibility given to people in postions of trust - the better example they are are expected to set in their persoanl behaviour. And when they fail in this - they are prepared to accept the consequences.

Here it would seem that (some of) these people expect to be able to do just as they please - as it is thought - that Max is answerable - not them.

Yes, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to take an issue up with Joe first. That is quite nomal pratice. The usual procedure if you have no satisfaction at one level is to take the matter higher.

Whether you like it or not, Joe does have a boss who ultimately carries responsability for Mudcat and its "employees". To hammer on at the lower levels for nearly 6 years when you have the option to take the matter higher is abnormal.

And whether you like it or not, Joe is accountable to Max, not any of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 12:17 PM

The above (12:14pm) was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 12:32 PM

Nice one, Roger (11:01AM post) - did I perceive a slight Shambling smile behind it, just a crack of the lips? If so, the day has been worth it.

George (whose other hero was Ulysses, if only for those Sirens crawling all over him)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 12:47 PM

This thread is a frikkin' OUTRAGE! If it is not closed down and removed entirely from the Mudcat records, I am going to STAY dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 01:15 PM

THe real debate on that Hawkster is if you were ever really alive or like Max, simply a figment of the imagination.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 01:21 PM

I don't think LH is a Fig Newton of my imagination, a Jammy Dodger possibly.
G ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 01:23 PM

translation please? Jammy Dodger?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 01:37 PM

MMario, it's a biscuit with a spot of Jam in the centre.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 01:47 PM

They are a British biscuit/Cookie Bite here
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Big Mick
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 07:09 PM

Giok, How serious can I take a link to a site that spells "center" wrong??????? I think Joe or I should sneak in and delete that spelling for being incompatible with decent spelling sensitivities.....MMMMMMHHHHAAAAAAAA

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 07:21 PM

Centre is the correct spelling in the UK...and possibly in Canada too.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: gnu
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 07:25 PM

Centre IS the correct spelling. And I am in Canada as well, LH.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Big Mick
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 08:29 PM

Lads, tell me you recognize a purely tongue in cheek comment????? I have been around long enough to know this ..... LMAO

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 08:44 PM

Little Hawk, you willnot stay dead. I don't think you gets a choice. (On the other hand, do you believe in Nirvana?)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 09:41 PM

Oh, he can stay dead if he wants to. Or does he turn into a pumpkin at midnight??


A

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 09:55 PM

Yeah, Mick. :-) Just playin' the straight man, tbat's all...

Ebbie, you are right about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:08 AM

No Mario, it's not the clique this time. Following my interchanges with Shambles on the other thread, it's now "Spaw's Spurious Spinnin' Mudcat Puerile Posse."

For the record - I did make reference to this 'posse'. As I thought this word was one that described the response of some - in the context of the thread in which the post was placed.

The rest of the words are not products of my imagination and I can claim no credit for them (or their speling).


But to defend Shambles and then to do exactly the thing you're defending him for, to another poster, does sort of disincline folks to think you're serious.

LTS

This response - made to our 'spurious Greek bearing gifts' - was in reference to an abusive personal attack (that was made to himself) and it turns out that Liz was right not to take this poster seriously.....

However, if this poster was thought to be posing in order to defend me in any way - I would like to make it clear that - it was NOT for making abusive personal attacks upon fellow posters or ever responding in kind to them. Perhaps the inference that I do indulge in this - can be corrected or evidence produced to support this inference?


This thread title was about what turned-out to be a spurious proposal but there is no reason why it cannot now contain some serious ones.

Whatever it may have been - posting to make personal judgements of each other's worth to post (bad or good) - was never the object of our forum. It sometimes seems that this is all that we are being encouraged to do. It should be no surprise that folk are judging right back and so on.........

Perhaps it would be good to adopt for the future - the idea that if we wish to express any form of personal judgement (good or bad) of a fellow poster - or indeed make this judgement to them - that we use PMs for this> That we never do it publicly and never respond in kind - if the original judgement was abusive?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 11:27 AM

Could you elaborate on that some more?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 11:31 AM

Shambles, who is the "we" you are hoping would agree to your proposal?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 01:58 PM

When I use the term we - it always refers to all of us.

It is not me speaking for anyone else - but me seen to be speaking to everyone else - as I would not wish to exclude anyone.

Why would you need to question the use and meaning of this simple word - or ever have any cause to?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 04:04 PM

When I use the term we - it always refers to all of us.

It is not me speaking for anyone else - but me seen to be speaking to everyone else - as I would not wish to exclude anyone.


I'm neither concerned that you intend exclusion, Roger, nor about who does (or does not) feel you are authorized to speak for them.

I'm looking just at the practical side of "we."

At any given moment, on any given day, there is a completely unique "all of us" 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?

Hm?


Why would you need to question the use and meaning of this simple word - or ever have any cause to?

Why: I questioned it to be of help to you in your realizing you have failed to grasp the most essential reality about Mudcat and about this campaign you are waging. You have said you are a man who can be persuaded.

Have any cause to: Because clearly, something is stuck in your approach to all this-- as people offer new ideas you keep responding with old, canned replies. I'm suggesting you look strictly at the practicalities of the issues involved as a fresh starting point to being able to understand the vast majority of posts people have offered you in response to your viewpoints.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 04:12 PM

Anyone got any drugs?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: gnu
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 04:58 PM

I could suggest a contact.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: gnu
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:12 PM

But, the drugs he's got might make you paranoid.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:12 PM

OK. It goes like this. If I had about 38-40 kgs of good grass, like I could start to understand this whole censorship thing and get into an intimate relationship with Sara Lee, know what I mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: gnu
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:22 PM

Sara could be had for much less than that. She's such a slut.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:25 PM

Be still my beating heart!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: gnu
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:55 PM

Just don't beat anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 05:57 PM

Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

Abstinence makes the hand go fondle.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:26 PM

As a fairly recent member, I have been following this, and related threads, with considerable interest.

As a result, I have reached several reasoned (I believe) conclusions.

1. Shambles,

Posting the same argument multiple times, in slightly different word order, and with different examples quoted, does not seem to improve your chances of achieving your desires, and, in point of fact, becomes somewhat tiring even to those who might be inclined to agree with you.

2. In any enterprise, as workload increases, it becomes necessary for the principal to take on staff to cover that load. You object to Max choosing catters whom he knows, and trusts not to misuse the limited, and supervised, powers they are given. Do I correctly infer from your posts, that you would prefer this forum to be edited by people who know nothing of Mudcat, or are you stating that everything should be allowed, including racism, sexism, personal attacks, and libel?

3. Xander,

You are suggesting a series of changes that correspond rather closely with what I see happening already. In what way would that improve the issues that disturb you?

3. On mature consideration of my experience of Mudcat, I would say that Max, Joe, and Big Mick have the mixture about right, and I'm happy with the site as is. In fact, their forbearance, and patience in putting up with some of the more obnoxious personal attacks is little short of heroic. Not naming anyone, I will just say that I doubt if I would have allowed certain posters to continue as long as they have.

I think that proves that they are not the bullying despots that they have been called.

Mudcat is fine and needs little alteration except in the minds of those who cannot convert others to their point of view. For myself, I don't seek to convert, but to converse, and I can do that without any worries about being bullied here.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Big Mick
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:31 PM

The alteration it needs must occur in the minds of the folks that respond to this stuff. Roger is entitled to his opinion, and in virtually every posters response they have indicated they are tired of his restating the same thing over and over; they are tired of him twisting quotes to serve himself; they go on and on about how he goes on and on. Do you folks learn anything? Who is worse, Roger or you? The question to Roger about who is "we" has been asked over and over.

Roger isn't the problem anymore. Those that feed him are.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:54 PM

"Do you folks learn anything?"

Yes, Mick, people do learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 10:41 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!)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 06:40 AM

Big Mick,

When did trying to present a reasoned, and hopefully cogent, argument become the wrong thing to do?

It is just barely possible that the people I spoke to might find a spark of merit in what I had to say on the subject.

How does that make me as bad, as good, or the same as, anyone else?

I simply posted my views, which were, I might point out, in support of yourself, Max, and Joe. I thought that was the point of a discussion forum.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:15 AM

Posting the same argument multiple times, in slightly different word order, and with different examples quoted, does not seem to improve your chances of achieving your desires, and, in point of fact, becomes somewhat tiring even to those who might be inclined to agree with you.

What you suggest here - that I do - is the 'spin' yes. The fact that I or anyone may often post what appears to similar things views - does not mean that anyone is being forced to share them - or indeed even have read them. Our forum is constructed to enable every poster to have the choice of reading and responding or of not even opening the thread. So where is the problem?

One of the problems presented to me - not of our forum's original design but of a later improvement - is that on opening a long thread - folk do not often ( possibly understandably) read it from the start of the thread. As my object is to inform as many posters as I can of what the reality of what the current censorship is - rather than the 'spin' it is defended by - I try to place as much information as I can - in each post rather than expecting new readers to go right back to the start.

This may well be tedious to folk who have followed it from the very start - but are there really that many of them prepared to do this? Other than the usual members of my personal fan-club *Smiles* No one is being forced to open these threads - are they?

2. In any enterprise, as workload increases, it becomes necessary for the principal to take on staff to cover that load.

That may well be true for a editorial staff of a magazine - who would have to select or reject articles for publication. I do not accept that it really holds true for an discussion forum - comprised entirely of contributions from the public - invited by Max.

You object to Max choosing catters whom he knows, and trusts not to misuse the limited, and supervised, powers they are given.

NO. I just question the wisdom of this and try to evidence in different examples - to the rest of the posters - that what these few trusted posters say is happening in the semi-official 'spin' - is NOT in fact what is happening. That some of those trusted by Max - are themselves setting the example of indulging in abusive personal attacks and inciting others to do so and of later justifying and excusing these actions.

Do I correctly infer from your posts, that you would prefer this forum to be edited by people who know nothing of Mudcat, or are you stating that everything should be allowed, including racism, sexism, personal attacks, and libel?

No I would prefer the onus was placed first place on self-censorship and this example set to try and prevent the problem posts from appearing. No real attempt is made at prevention. The current reactive censorship does nothing to prevent these posts from being made but does limit the basic freedoms of more responisible posters by routine changes being imposed upon posts - without the poster's knowledge or permission.

No matter how unpleasant you may judge them - the structure of our forum does allow expessions of racism, sexism, and personal attacks to be ignored. And if these not responded to in kind or at all - and this is encouraged - threads of this nature to will die a natural death.

When it is thought that the possible legal risk to Max of a particular post (such as a libellious one- it can be brought to Max's attention - and he can decide if he wishes it to remain.

Do you think that it really is worth the time and effort of our volunteers to judge, root-out and delete posts claiming the 100th post - whilst many of the abusive (and racist) personal attacks are left in place?

My real concern is more with the general and now routine tinkering and imposition of (some of) our volunteer's personal tastes upon the simple freedoms of ordinary posters in the music section and the shaping of our forum by this imposition.

This is the reality of what is happening under the cover of protecting us all from abusive personal attacks. A noble cause that many of will defend but which has not worked - mainly as many of our volunteers indulge in it themselves and it is not in reality the object. As all the real energy and attention is placed in this shaping of our forum to (some of) our volunteer's personal tastes.

It is going to result in a rather strange and confusing game - when the referee expects also to take part in the match?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:21 AM

That some of those trusted by Max - are themselves setting the example of indulging in abusive personal attacks and inciting others to do so and of later justifying and excusing these actions.

That's easily solved shambles. Tell Max that you feel that his judgement on who to trust is faulty.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:23 AM

Mudcat is fine and needs little alteration except in the minds of those who cannot convert others to their point of view. For myself, I don't seek to convert, but to converse, and I can do that without any worries about being bullied here.

Don T.

*Smiles*

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:25 AM

Don, I don't think Mick is singling you out - I think he is addressing all of us who are replying to shambles. I think Mick is advocating the ignore trolls principle. It is a policy that can work but one I don't believe ever will work here and certainly hasn't in the 5-6 years I've visited this site.

To work it needs everyone to agree to ingore and everyone to agree on whether someone is trolling or not. The nature of Mudcat is such that I think debates over that issue and over who has the rights to suggest to who that they should not be replying are likely to be as long and heated as the troll threads themselves.

Mind you, I suppose I could give it another go and see how long I resist the temptation of replying...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:32 AM

Don,

I agree with Jon - Big Mick was referring to all respondents. 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.

---

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-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: kendall
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 08:50 AM

Self censorship doesn't always work. When you have someone with a filthy mouth and no manners self censorship is a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: jacqui.c
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 08:53 AM

Very well put George.

By the way, after that Xander jape you really are going to have to watch your back at the Getaway. Payback is SUCH fun........

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 08:59 AM

They are correct, Don. I was not singling you out, I was simply borrowing part of your terminology to make the point.

I repeat, those of you who carry on are responsible for Roger's response. If you are tired of it, Stop. I don't believe that this person can help himself.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 09:30 AM

It's funny really, because, having read the whole of this thread and the other, much larger, one, I hadn't come to the conclusion that Roger was a troll. I see him (no disrespect intended Roger) as someone who genuinely feels, perhaps erroneously, that what he says is true. I felt that he was too persistent in repeating the argument, but I had no problem with the comments made. I simply disagreed with them.

Mick,

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I do take your point, tho' I tend to classify as trolls, only those whose postings are offensive, or disruptive, and contribute nothing to the subject under discussion.

I have to say that I still don't feel that Roger falls into that definition.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 09:48 AM

Don, there's some interesting reading about "trolls" at About Trolls. Here's some highlights:

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them.

Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.

Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash.

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to them and by reminding others not to respond to trolls.

When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 10:05 AM

Hi Don......There is a really interesting site somewhere or another thattalks about "good" and "bad" trolls. Trolling is simply asking questions in a way to provoke discussion so obviously this can be done in a good way, a way to make you think out of the box or see an issue in a different light.....a good troll. The "bad" troll provokes discussion but by asking things in an immflammatory manner which is obviously meant NOT to bring out ideas and debate, but simply to anger.

Awhile back on one of these two threads, I suggested that Roger is some kind of new type or different troll as I really don't believe he fits in either category. Now before someone jumps on me "pigeonholing" here, I'm not. I was then and am now simply trying to see the reasoning behind his continuing efforts to make his point(s). A good troll would have stopped long ago and a bad troll .......... well, ya' know, I've known Roger here for a long while and no matter his feeling towards me or I towards him and no matter how far apart we stand on these issues of his, I can't believe he is or has it in him to be the classic "bad troll." So I am lost for a reason as to why this non-debate continues.

Everyone and their grandmother has told him to take his issues to Max and this isn't happening. He seems to want a "following" of some sort behind him but he also states he has one (all evidence to the contrary).........So why not go to Max?

I ask the question of everyone out there.......Does anyone understand Shambles' motivation here and why he doesn't take his issue(s)to Max at this point? Right now the only reason I see that he doesn't is that he is so taken up with the verbage of his cause and he loves to read his own stuff or perhpas he really is just another troll of some different sort, some good and some bad and all of it a pain in the ass. Anyway, I'm at a loss to understand anything he does anymore...........Maybe he's a Masochistic Troll instead of a sadistic one.(;<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 10:09 AM

Thanks kat......I guess my problem is that I don't think that Roger really means to be a troll, he just is. Maybe I'm wrong..........Beats me.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 10:30 AM

I guess, on thinking it through, you are right, Catspaw. Gets complex doesn't it?

Thanks for the definitions, Katlaughing, they clarify the issue.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 11:01 AM

You're welcome, Don.

Spaw, I agree, I don't think he fits neatly into any one kind of defintion...Tiresome Troll may be a new one, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:17 PM

HEY!!! I think I got it!!!! "Trolling" is a fishing term where the boat moves through the water with a number of baited lines trailing out from it. That's what a troll does isn't it? And of course that's probably where the term comes from to the net. But to maintain the fishing analogy, Shambles doesn't fit. He's not got a bait out for every thread or even issue. He's a one-trick pony with one subject he harps along continually on and basically only on one thread or two in the current case. In fishing terms, he's not a troller but he's a Trotline...........Yeah, that's it.....a Trotline!!!!! Trotlines are baited hooks hung from one stationary line that attracts fish as they pass.....a great way to catch catfish but just boring as hell. Shambles collects lots of "fish" but he's boring as hell!

Not Shambles the Troll folks.....He's Shambles the Trotline!!! Perfect fit!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:31 PM

Yes spaw, Internet trolling does come from the fishing term (and not from the beasty).

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Deckman
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:52 PM

I'm going to jump in here with my opinion:

I made the decision back in December to stop posting to MC. I did this because I needed I break from the constant crap spewing from martin gibson. At that time, I shared my decision with Joe Offer. He said he regretted my decision but understood my reasons.

Just last week, I posted again with a serious question regarding future hand surgery I may have. I was very pleased with the responses and relieved that the thread did not get trashed.

What I would like to see happen is for martin gibson to be denied the ability to post again. PERIOD! Censorship? You bet, and it's been a long time coming and very needed.

As Joe mentioned earlier, one of the basic tenants of MC membership is "good will." martin gibson has repeatedly demostrated his lack of this quality.

I will continue to peruse MC occasionally, but I doubt I'll ever participate as I used to until martin gibson is gone. Bob(deckman)Nelson

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 02:08 PM

"Any person capable of angering you becomes your master; he can anger you only when you permit yourself to be disturbed by him." -- Epictetus

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 03:16 AM

Martin Gibson's posts have been under 100 percent review, and anything that is at all combative is being deleted. Martin has been doing a pretty good job of removing the personal attacks from his own posts. Give him a chance, willya?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 04:55 AM

It's funny really, because, having read the whole of this thread and the other, much larger, one, I hadn't come to the conclusion that Roger was a troll. I see him (no disrespect intended Roger) as someone who genuinely feels, perhaps erroneously, that what he says is true.

Don – I am well-used to being called many far-more disrespectful names here - from posters who may not agree with me and for some reason wish to prevent me from saying it. And to prevent others from responding to the issues raised. It is a practice that attempts stop any real problem from ever being addressed. There is no problem with disagreement and debate – this is a forum for public discussion.


Do you consider the following statement of mine to be erroneous?

That some of those trusted by Max - are themselves setting the example of indulging in abusive personal attacks and inciting others to do so and of later justifying and excusing these actions

This is not simply my view - erroneous or not – it is a fact that I have and will demonstrate again (if really required). It will remain a sad fact - until the practice is addressed.

You are welcome to express an opinion - that my opinion is erroneous – when I go on to say that this behaviour is sad and the example it sets is unacceptable. You are welcome to express the opinion that this behaviour is fine and the example it sets is an acceptable one to you – if you think that this is the case?

But if preventing abusive personal attacks – is the real object of all these anonymous volunteers imposing their personal judgement – does it make any sense if these volunteers indulge in this and encourage others to follow suit and think that it is funny?

But this practice by (some of) our trusted volunteers (and their supporters) remains a fact to be addressed - unless you can provide evidence that it is not. What we do have provided have are sad excuses by and for our volunteers - about provocation…. I think that you may agree that there have been many attempts to provoke me into responding in kind here to abusive personal attacks and name-calling? I think you may agree that I have shown that it is perfectly possible to avoid this temptation. Perhaps wisely – for if I did ever respond in kind – I suspect my posts would be deleted – for making abusive personal attacks?

Perhaps the views, comments and conduct of some of our trusted volunteers could be given the same close scrutiny, personal judgement - that this poster's honestly expressed views on this important issue are subject to? And some perhaps some attention and comment could be given to the following?

Do you think that it really is worth the time and effort of our volunteers to judge, root-out and delete posts claiming the 100th post - whilst many of the abusive (and racist) personal attacks are left in place?

My real concern is more with the general and now routine tinkering and imposition of (some of) our volunteer's personal tastes upon the simple freedoms of ordinary posters in the music section and the shaping of our forum by this imposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: s&r
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:01 AM

What happened to 'Trawl'? Is Troll the US equivalent?

In my book a Troll is a mischievous possibly evil mythical beast - sounds much more desctiptive to me.

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:09 AM

It's not marked as being a US term in Chambers, Stu. One definition it gives there is fishing with a [revolving or trailing] lure. I think that is very descriptive of Internet trolling.

I must admit I do tend to think of the "fisherman" as the troll you describe. It does seem appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 10:46 AM

...posters who may not agree with me and for some reason wish to prevent me from saying it. And to prevent others from responding to the issues raised.

Virtually NOTHING has ever been prevented from being said on the Mudcat, nor has there ever been a prevention or responses, except in such extreme cases as MG and garg. Your own verbose threads, repetitious ad nauseum, atttest to that, Roger.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:29 AM

That some of those trusted by Max - are themselves setting the example of indulging in abusive personal attacks and inciting others to do so and of later justifying and excusing these actions

you asked if this statement was found to be erroneous. The answer is
"yes"

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:36 PM

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:01 AM
Max, Jeff, and Joe were off doing other things today, and missed this one. It's a personal attack, and it isn't allowed. Since so many have posted to it, I guess I won't delete it - but I will close it. This is one of the "no-brainers" that the Clones should have deleted early on, no matter what Shambles thinks. Clones, don't let Shambles care you off - you're doing a good job, but you should have deleted this and told us about it.
Bob, I'm sorry this happened.
Shambles, go whine somewhere else, or maybe we should start threads about you and the sheep or something.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11-Jun-04 - 12:29 AM
I could delete Bob's name, but I doubt that would do any good. the damage has been done. The thread should have been deleted as soon as it appeared, and I'm sorry that didn't happen.
But Shambles believes in this sort of thing, so I think that maybe this would be a good opportunity to smear his reputation.
Shambles, I'm sick of you and your shit.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Personal attack thread - please delete
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12-Jun-04 - 03:23 AM
Ah, Shambles - we make an exception for you, since you seem to think it's a good thing to have personal attacks. We want to keep you happy, after all. Your whining is so annoying.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:59 PM

Example of the 'spin' when other posters 'look' like they may make abusive personal attacks.

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-

Example of the justification and excuses given when our volunteers themselves indulge in making abusive personal attacks and incite others to follow this example. (This being in reference to the three posts placed earlier at 06.36.


Subject: RE: BS: Can't Refresh A Closed Thread : RE jOhn
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 29 Jan 05 - 11:47 PM

Well, gee, Shambles. I thought I was just disagreeing - not making abusive attacks. And even what I said last June that you quoted above - expressing exasperation with your constant whining is not what most normal people would consider to be an abusive attack.

So, I guess the best thing I can do is to continue to ignore you, since it appears I will continue to be in my current position and do my work the best I can, and you will continue to complain about that. Sounds like a stalemate, doesn't it?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:17 AM

I know this is going to sound to Shambles like an abusive personal attack, but it's not.

Shambles........Your prior two posts make no sense in any context. I don't see where what you think to be an example is an example at all. Neither of the two examples in the post above seem to illustrate your points but frankly I have not a clue what the points ARE. You have the most convoluted logic patterns I have ever seen........or maybe your thinking is on a higher level than mine (no great feat).

You do this all the time though.   I can barely understand some of your posts and the examples you give serve only to completely confuse the matter.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:37 AM

Joe Offer's long response in the thread quoted by Shambles. Read this and the immediately following Joe post to get an impression of how long all this goes and how little progress has been made.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 08:47 AM

Shambles........Your prior two posts make no sense in any context. I don't see where what you think to be an example is an example at all. Neither of the two examples in the post above seem to illustrate your points but frankly I have not a clue what the points ARE.

Making someone and offer they can't refuse - in the Godfather fashion - is a problem. Making someone and offer they claim they cannot understand - is not. Just ignore it...........I am quite sure that there will be many other posters who have no trouble in understanding perfectly. However, they may not be brave enough to post publicly and say this - and this should hardly be surprising.

Perhaps one of the points is that no matter what names you wish to call me - (and to call other posters who may express and evidence a different view - or to publicly post to other posters about them) -that it is possible to set the example of never responding in kind - or possible not to respond at all. Given your many posts on the subject so far - none of these options would appear to occur to you.

And as you assume to answer for me - no - I do not consider your last post to be an abusive personal attack? - but do you really wish me to provide some more examples here - of what I do consider to be abusive personal attacks upon me - from you and others?

The facts are all here and as you would not really expect turkeys to vote for Christmas (or Thanksgiving) - I will leave others to judge - from these facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 08:54 AM

Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:15 AM

Many of us have been led to believe that those posters who were called silly internet names like Trolls - had first to be anonymous?

And that those who called other posters names like this - held the moral high-ground and were somehow allowed to indulge in this name-calling of other posters - because they were NOT anonymous.

It is a fact that anonymous posting has hardly been generally popular in the past history of our forum - has it?

Why would anonymous posting (and general name-calling) be thought to be any more acceptable now?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 08:38 AM

silly as the moniker "troll" may be - it is a generally accepted term for a specific type of behavior on the internet. It doe not and never has depended on being anonymous.

nor does calling a troll a troll equate to holding the "higher ground" morally - when it is true it is merely identification of a behavior.

However - this is a much a judgement call as other types of interaction - such as gender bashing or sexual harrassment - where intent and perception can be radically different.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 01:40 PM

silly as the moniker "troll" may be - it is a generally accepted term for a specific type of behavior on the internet. It doe not and never has depended on being anonymous.

It is just another silly name to call someone and its use probably says a lot more about those who need to do the name-calling that it does about who is being called names.

I am surprised that with all the name-calling or public speculation with other posters about whether this name actually fits me (as if this were important) - it appears to be have been overlooked that this thread was created only as intentional 'Troll - bait'!!!

The thread was not the originator's true opinion but posted just to stir things-up (or as a joke) and the originator adopted a bogus handle in order to post it. But there does not appear to be any rush or even any great need to speculate publicly - with other posters - about the orginator's motives, mental condition or any need call the originator of this thread any names.

Sadly to some, the term Troll has largely come to mean an expressed view that some may not be agree with. Especially when the poster expressing their honest view in moderate language - makes no attempt at being anonymous. When this is the case - the name-calling and speculation to other posters - about the poster in question - could beeen seen as just another way of making yet another a needless personal judgement of another poster.

Perhaps it is time that we - and the internet - grew-up and left all the name-calling back in the schoolyard?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 01:57 PM

Shambles - if you think that name calling has "been left in the shchoolyard" then I have to assume you totally ignore politics, news reporting, movies, television and most forms of public communication - all of which are and have been rife with name calling for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 02:11 PM

Which I do not use as justification - rather I am hoping that you will infer as I mean to imply; that it is not plausible to hold mudcat posters to a standard the rest of the world ignores.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 04:50 PM

The difference between trolling and trawling? As used in the US, trolling involves single lines with multiple hooks; trawling uses nets and weights and scrapes along the bottom of the ocean.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 05:54 PM

Which I do not use as justification - rather I am hoping that you will infer as I mean to imply;
that it is not plausible to hold mudcat posters to a standard the rest of the world ignores.

Your mission, Jim, should you decide to accept it, is to diagram that sentence. This tape will self-destruct in thirty seconds...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 05:58 PM

Which I do not use as justification - rather I am hoping that you will infer as I mean to imply; that it is not plausible to hold mudcat posters to a standard the rest of the world ignores.

It has always seemed to me that we have a choice - we can always carry on trying to set a better example here - or we can use this as an excuse and blame the rest of the world - and behave just as badly and set as poor an example as we like. We are ALL of us accountable for our actions are we not?

It has never made sense to me - for us here to judge critise our Governments and official bodies, lok down uopm them and act superior - if we act just as badly and set this example.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:02 PM

fuckashitpiss

Just felt like saying that.

Now back to regular censorship talk, brought to you by the nuns of Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:03 PM

Well it seemed to hit the spot, and knocked you off track for a while, so all in all I think it was worth it.;~)
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer
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.-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:24 PM

We want you to feel good.

We do?

Who is this 'we' you speak for?

---

It's OK, Shambles. We want you to feel good, too.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:46 PM

MMMPph.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Deckman
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:22 PM

Joe ... just to help broaden the general level of linguistics within the MC community: "fuckashitpiss" ... in Finnish ... is "santanaan pericoles." We might get a complaint from a mudcatter or two in Rovaniemi, or Helsinki, but I rather doubt it! CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:25 PM

The true test Grasshopper is this: Can you say it ten times fast?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Deckman
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:43 PM

Yes, I can .... and I frequantly do. Bob!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Jeri
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:46 PM

Shambles, Sister Mary Joe "I'm Too Sexy For My Habit" Offer, of (and obviously speaking for) the order of nuns known as the Sisters of NO Mercy, has gone to look for a Ruler.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: jpk
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:39 PM

let us test the censors and may god bless see,they aint no govt censors around here

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:55 PM

Joe, if I called you Joe Orifice, would you consider it a personal attack?

Just asking.

BTW, fuckashitpiss was a term used in a pop novel from the 1960s called "Candy" It has nothing to do with me feeling good.

Big Mick on the other hand, I am sure got quite a charge out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Apr 05 - 11:06 PM

Jeri, are the Sisters of NO Mercy high church? If so, perhaps some posters have confused a censer for censorship...all that incense can really get up your nose, ya know?**bg**

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:06 AM

Describing Terry Southern as a pop writer? Yeah, I guess so and more is the pity.

The best of the post-beat generation writers, he was a modern day Swift. "Candy" was a beautiful Swiftian take on Voltaire's Candide that he sort of knocked off on the side as he wrote the story and screenplay for "Dr. Strangelove." Simply amazing amount of talent. He also wrote the screenplay for "Easy Rider" but agreed to share the credit with Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper. But if you are a TS fan, Jack Nicholson's speech around the campfire about Venus is pure Terry Southern.

Everything he did was done with an ironic twist.....or ten. His contributions became the standard of style and made him famous enough to be one of the folks on the front of the Beatles Sgt. Pepper album. The anarchistic and obscene blended with the ironic. Terry Southern changed the entire landscape of American writing and in the doing so becmae lost himself. Everybody to some degree now imitates parts of Terry Southern while he is relegated back to the background as a pop writer. Truth is that Terry Southern was (died in the mid 90's) and is a bigger influence on American writing and writers than Steinbeck or Hemmingway and a classic piece of satire like "Candy" is sadly only thought of as a cheap porn novel.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:41 AM

A google search turns up three sites whereupon the term 'fuckashitpiss' may be found. However, when the terms are separated, a google search turns up 670,000 sites. When the separated terms are put in quotation marks, two sites turn up. FYI.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 03:09 AM

Martin, if you called me that once or twice, I'd put up with it - but I probably wouldn't think of it as a compliment.


I don't remember "fuckashitpiss" from Candy, and I don't remember the irony. I guess I have to admit that all I remember is the cheap porn...

Hey, I was a teenager when I read it.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 05:50 AM

Is it fuck-as-hit-piss or
fuck-a-shit-piss?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 03:50 PM

fuckashitpiss as you see it here was the way it was used, as I remember when Candy took the hunchback's hump into her frontal (Joe)orifice.

Sorry, Joe.

trying to behave but all of that bleeping is unfair and I keep getting PMs from people on why the few politically correct here are ruining some fun for everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 04:32 AM

OK, Martin, that's twice. Now, if you say that "orifice" thing a third time, I'm really going to get my feelings hurt.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 06:14 AM

Are you saying that you want anarchy Martin? Because that is what we would have without some form of moderation on this site. I'm quite sure a few people have left the site because of the sort of posts that you and others make. I am also sure that they far outweigh the unnamed supporters that you allude to in your post @ 0350. I also don't think you are right to call it political correctness, it is more a common decency and respect for others thing. You don't know everybody that posts on here, so you can't know who is, and who isn't offended by bad language, from what I read we certainly seem to have a lot of churchgoers on this site, and I can't imagine they are overjoyed about it. There are women and kids too, I don't know about your family but I still feel awkward if I swear in front of my 37 year old son and his partner, it's an upbringing thing. You can't afford egocentricity when you're among such a mixed bunch of people.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: jacqui.c
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:55 AM

Well said Giok.

I can't say that bad language per se causes me great offence personally but the gratuitous and personal use, to which you put it Martin, IS offensive and, basically, boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 03:58 PM

Agree Jacqui - unless it is a medical condition. Is there such a thing as Tourette's Syndrome in writing?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 05:20 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmm, [Bleep - personal attack] Giok. I'm sorry if you embarrass so easy. If you feel awkward with your 37 year old son and his uh, "partner" I'm sure you probably have your own heartache for other reasons.

Actually, I don't really care all that much who has hang-ups here and who doesn't. Maybe you think sex is dirty, also. Plenty of you good churchgoers have been known to think that.

El Greko, before you start analyzing medical conditions, first go to a gumball machine and get your medical licesnce. OK? that will make you more qualified for your diagnosis than you already are I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 05:49 PM

I knew you wouln't understand Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:17 PM

No need Martin - a computer is sufficient, the Internet has all the info we need.

It seems my hunch was right. There is a link between Tourette and scatological writing; there is even a term for it: "Coprographia". Take a look at this article on Tourettes and coprographia.

Fascinating reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: jacqui.c
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 10:43 PM

I was thinking the same myself George. Sublime music and tacky words! Maybe we have another Mozart with us!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 04:40 PM

Martin, you are still under 100 percent review because of your history of combative conduct. Please remember that your status here is strictly as a noncombatant. I thought you had been improving, but maybe not. I had to [bleep] a lot of messages from the past couple days.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 07:29 AM

Joe is that your personal opinion or the Official Mudcat view - of 'we'? If it was the latter - should it be in an editorial comment - so this is clear?

Let he is without sin etc.

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040811.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 05:04 PM

If I could lift it I'd throw it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 01:48 AM

El Greko and Jacqui, that's a fascinating subject. I was of course aware of Tourette's but I had no idea there was such a thing as its equivalent in writing. It opens the door (book?) to lots more reading and learning. Thanks to you both.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 05:42 PM

waht all this is about?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 05:48 PM

Go back to sleep, jOhn. Tomorrow is another day.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 05:57 PM

Joe, I fart in your general direction.



If one person reads it before you act like God, that's OK with me.

Giok obviously did. And it wasn't a personal attack, either. It was an opinion which you have censored.

---

Gee, Martin. I've tried to be reasonable with you, and I thought you had cleaned up your act reasonably well. Shambles thinks I'm too generous to you. Don't test me.
-joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 02:20 AM

Shambles thinks I'm too generous to you. Don't test me.

You could quote me correctly on many things - but you choose not to. I have never accused you of being generous to anyone (except possibly to yourself).

I have evidenced your inefficiency when it comes to having any affect on preventing abusive personal attacks - but that is not the same thing as saying you are generous.

Please don't put words in my mouth. There is no need for you ever to mention this or any other poster's name in ether your postings or your editing comments - so please don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 02:25 AM

Shambles said, "Let he is without sin etc."

I replied, "If I could lift it I'd throw it."

And not one of you got even a little chuckle outta that? You guys gotta take some of my meds, man.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 04:40 PM

Gee, we're all really sorry, Brucie.

Would a polite titter make up for for our negligence in not appreciating your joke? Or will you settle only for a full-snorting guffaw now?

[snort, snort...]

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 04:48 PM

Actually, it not only made me chuckle, it made me think. Ayers Rock, right? I got to wondering how it came to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 04:50 PM

brucie I got the joke honest! I even googled Rock of Gibralter to throw one back at you, but the phone rang.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 04:52 PM

Oh, and I was also reminded me of the story where a naughty little kid sent out to fetch a switch from a bush for his own whipping comes back in distress. He says: I couldn't find a switch but here's a wock you can fwow at me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 04:53 PM

See, Brucie? We really do appreciate you.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:01 PM

Uluru Ebbie.
G ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:02 PM

Joe, I did not use one obscenity in the post you bleeped. What you did was censor a personal opinion I made on a person's lifestyle and it wasn't even the poster himself. basically I felt sorry for the poster that said he has a male relative who's "partner" he was squeemish about using obscenities around.

I basically said that I was glad I didn't have those issues.

I believe you went a little too far overboard in your great haste to censor me for a personal observation/opinion on a lifestyle which can't even be expressed.

I don't find it politically incorrect to say that I find the homosexual lifestyle somewhat offensive. I would say that many others do, also.

---

I agree, Martin. That post was deleted by mistake, and I undeleted it as soon as I discovered the error. It's only combative posts that I'm deleting.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:10 PM

When do you come into contact with the homosexual lifestyle that causes you offence? What particular aspects of it offends you?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:17 PM

Uh, let's start with lisping men who swish and flaunt it and butt fuck.

Stereotype? Yep. Most stereotypes are sure based on some truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: jacqui.c
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:47 PM

But you are OK with women who do the same, Martin?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:59 PM

Sure, they are more fun to watch.


Actually, no I'm not.

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

Ok honest answer Martin.

So, why do you think a section of society are not entitled to the same level of respect/acceptance as any other section of society? I can't see why you would find something that does not touch your life in any way, so offensive?

As a guy I can see you may find the concept gut turning, but then don't dwell on it, you probably have habits others would cringe at too. But the homophobia you display goes way beyond gut turning.

Presumably none of your friends are gay? No relatives? Colleagues? They are just individuals who have differing sexual preferences to your own. They don't infringe on your existence. They don't insult you for your choices.

Sometimes you speak real good sense. But the homophobic stance you take is too extreme.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 06:27 PM

Sorry to disillusion you Martin but the word partner, which I note you put in quotation marks for some obscure reason, means just that. If you are married then your wife is your partner, and in the instance of my son and his partner, [note lack of quotation marks] she is also the Mother of my grandson.
Interesting the way some peoples minds work.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: SINSULL
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 11:38 PM

That was me on jacqui's computer. Sorry I forget to Log Out.
SINSULL

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Once Famous
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 12:00 PM

Too extreme for you, perhaps.

Yes, I have a gay cousin. She is a disppointment to her parents. I like her, but they don't call it queer for nothing. She thinks that being gay is an excuse to be off-beat and she flaunts it.

I have known others who were gay including one guy who died of AIDS. What a waste.

I don't really dwell on it until it rears it's perverted smelly behind saying "hey notice me" which it does way to often.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 07:18 PM

Xander said

I already indicated remorse at my statement towards El Greko further up in this thread, and I apologised to him directly also. Yet some people continue to hit me over the head with my hasty words. What do they want, blood? How many times does one need to apologise?

But of course Xander (who started this thread) was El Greko and he was insulting himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 07:47 PM

and you know this how?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:21 PM

Crystal balls.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Chris Green
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:26 PM

Or merely balls?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:29 PM

It's not rocket science Bill - you just have to read the thread. However you are not the first not to notice it was a April Fool jest - perhaps because it started in March?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: El Greko - PM
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 09:05 AM

It was bloody hard keeping up two personalities though... And I don't just mean the admin of having to check every time my handle before I say anything. Xander had to be a specific person, with a specific character - slightly short fuse, well-meaning, persistent and a meddler.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 08:49 PM

"Slightly short fuse, well-meaning, persistent and a meddler" - hmmm.

Sounds like somebody I know.
-Joe Anonymous-

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 06:09 AM

-Joe Anonymous- Sounds like a Greek name..........?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Apr 05 - 09:02 AM

Funny - I thought you had tired of the "Trojan Wars"... Or read about them and found out who won... Oh, I see now, this was posted 16 minutes before your latest reference; but I forgot to count it.

So - 9 in 4 weeks, 4 in a day

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 07:01 AM

refesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 07:23 AM

Some people prefer to hide their inadequacies - others like to give them an airing now and then...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 02:28 PM

reFRESH? from APRIL? lordy, lordy, lordy....you need a hobby that gets you out of the house, Roger.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 02:59 PM

He may not be at liberty to roam abroad without an escort.
G.☺

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Big Mick
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 06:43 PM

This should prove to you the appropriate way to deal with this person. Ignore him, and he will refresh very old threads to get attention. It proves what I have always said. He is a classic troll. This is his bait. Please don't take it. He will now launch into lengthy diatribe and a spate of cut and paste out of context quotes. Please don't feed him.

It is very tempting to delete all posts back to Roger's 'refresh', but that would only feed his paranoia. Another JC

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 07:43 PM

Thanks for all the posts that have pushed this this thread (and this issue with it) back to the top. Yes just ignore me like Mick always posts and says that he does....*Smiles*

reFRESH? from APRIL? lordy, lordy, lordy....you need a hobby that gets you out of the house, Roger.

I didn't refresh this thread Bill - I refeshed it.

If you try to refresh any of the other threads on this issue - you will find that they have mostly been subject to imposed closure and that it is not possible to refresh or make any new contributions to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 Dec 05 - 07:46 PM

This one has not been subject to imposed closure - yet.

Double standard or hypocisy

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: JennyO
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:50 AM

If you try to refresh any of the other threads on this issue - you will find that they have mostly been subject to imposed closure and that it is not possible to refresh or make any new contributions to them.

Thank goodness for small mercies, is what I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 10:58 AM

Sorry about this - I just thought that the Shambles hadn't had much exercise this week, other than growling away on the thead name change thread, so what better way to get him up and jumping than to trot this out?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 11:43 AM

What were you told about plastering?
G.☺

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: Peace
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 05:11 PM

Jaysus, just when ya thought it was safe to go back in the water . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
From: gnu
Date: 23 Dec 05 - 05:28 PM

Into the water? I wouldn't try to tread all this bullshit.