 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
|
|
|
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.
-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? |
