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