Objections to Joe Offer

Subject: Objection to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:19 AM

Objections to John Mehlbeher

See the following post from the above thread.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:37 AM

On the subject of imposed censorship.

I am not too sure why any threads on this matter needed to be closed.

I am pretty amazed that as two were closed and given a choice of three thread tiles - this was the one that was chosen to remain.

I have no objection to John Mehlberger nor any other poster. I probably do have an objection to threads being started that have a poster's name and invitations for fellow posters to pass their personal judgement.

Perhaps a better example can be set?


I have no objections to Joe Offer. This thread I hope will be deleted (or closed as so many are) as it is just a way of pointing out that I am very concerned that the choice by our volunteers - of 'Objection to John Mellberger' as a remaining thread title will encourage others to post thread titles - like I just did.

---

Personally, I preferred the thread titled "Objections to The M---F--- Ball," but the primary discussion ended up in the Mehlberger thread. The three-thread split ended up in a confusingly trifurcated discussion. The choice was made according to the content of the thread, not the title. Since we needed to get opinions to solve a problem, it seemed to make sense to channel all three into a single thread.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:20 AM

Get a life Shambles

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 09:07 AM

Censorship on Mudcat

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 09:08 AM

Maybe you'd get more people to play with you if you started a lyrics thread with profanity in the song title.

Surely we can all come up with some clever tittie ditties to entertain ourselves with next week, no?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 09:23 AM

Man -- passive aggression sure is YEWGLY. I request this thread be deleted.

A

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 09:26 AM

Amos you just agreed with my suggestion............Must be a first?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:13 AM

But what about the "Objection to John Mehlbeher" thread? Should that be deleted also?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:15 AM

Stuff it Shambles

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:20 AM

Well said.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 11:25 AM

I request that this thread stay open.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 11:28 AM

tire-ing..

Jerry

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 11:34 AM

If you are tired, go to bed.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 11:36 AM

No thanks, Martin. Some discussions are never-ending...

My cookie crumbled, and I didn't realize it until I posted the message.

Otherwise refreshed,

Jerry

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Charley Noble
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 01:00 PM

Reading what Shambles originally posted, I agree with him. Of course, I was also initially confused...and would also have posted "GET A LIFE!"

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 04:42 PM

I guess I'm getting used to all the "objections." I try to serve people, but I know I can't satisfy all of them. I got a good lesson on that last Sunday. We had a church full of people waiting for 10:30 Mass to begin - and the priest didn't show up. We went next door to the rectory to see if there was a priest there - nobody.

So, we gave the congregation a choice: if they preferred, they could go five miles up the road and make it in time for 11 o'clock Mass at our other church, or they could stay and we lay ministers would do a communion service for them. The lectors did the first two readings and I read the Gospel and gave a homily/reflection, and then the eucharistic ministers distributed communion. When there were prayers to be led, I led them. I had eight years of seminary education and I've done church work all my life, so I know the ropes.

After the service, an overwhelming number of people stopped to thank me, and to say they enjoyed my sermon. One lady I didn't recognize said something nice, and handed me a note and told me to read it later. So, here's her note:

"I imagine that because you are not knowledgeable about the teaching of the Church or you would have been obedient and not caused an abuse by reading the gospel, and giving a homily since you are not an ordained priest or deacon. Otherwise, I'm sure we all appreciated the effort you all made. Perhaps a deacon should have been called in the absence of all three priests on a Sunday. No matter how good our intention is you cannot act the part of one ordained."

I sent the note on to the pastor so he'd be forewarned that there might be complaints, but I told him I was quite sure I had done everything "by the book." The pastor replied that he had received six anonymous voice mail messages of complaint, and one anonymous note (the Catholic Church has anonymous trolls, too...) - and at the end of his message, he offered me a job.

So, I guess the lesson is that if we dare to do anything in this life, somebody is bound to object. But if we put our hearts into what we do and try to respect the people we serve, that's all we can be expected to do.

So, that's the story of the first time Fr. Joebro led Sunday worship.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 04:50 PM

Do you do confessions by PM, Joe?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 04:58 PM

Hey, Joe, should I call you Father now? LOL. Can we negotiate allowance? OK. Enough of that.

That was good of you to do. I admire you for that, and it's true that no matter what ya do most of the time, someone will complain.

We fought a house fire a few years back. The house we got to was fully engulfed, and despite a quick search for people inside, one of our teams barely beat a flash over by about eight to ten seconds. My partner and I had a piece of roof fall on us, and it was a tough four hours for everyone. We could NOT save the structure, and we knew that when we arrived. We did however save the structures on either side of that house. Because the hydrant pressure is low in that section of the town, we ran a constant tanker relay to keep the pumpers supplied with water. Two days later one of the fellows heard from someone that 'if they'd been in charge things would have been different'. So, what are ya gonna do. Everyone's an expert. Ya done good Joe, and ya do good here, too. Thank you for that.

Bruce

Now, that Father Joe thing has a nice ring to it . . . .

Father Joe, what it be bro; how do it go; what do you know? Yo, Joe.

(OK. Rap's not my thing, but it has a nice ring, an' you make me sing, Father Joe. Yo, Joe.) LOL

Have a good day, buddy.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 05:04 PM

For pitys sake, leave the censors alone...let them be...who on earth are you to think you have the right to question their judgement? They do the job, just as the person who makes the decision for your country does.....Let them do their job...to the best of their ability...they may make mistakes occasionally but so do YOU!!!!!
So button it and get on with living eh? Love and peace to all.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 05:05 PM

Confessions only in the open forum, El Greko.
..but please mail the bribe in a plain brown envelope.

Fr. Joebro (thus named by His Excellency, Cat Cardinal Spaw)

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Janie
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 05:17 PM

I would object to Joe not making it to the Getaway, but other than that, count me as a BIG fan.

Janie

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 05:29 PM

simple math will tell you a lot about the state of the Mudcat today.

When we were quite small, 8-9 years ago, and most everyone who came by was looking for songs and used their own name (some even used email addresses as 'names'!!!), it was quiet and we thought *gargoyle* was a big burden to bear when he started off at his tangents....but as anyone who has ever spent much time in a big city can tell you, a rise in population not only increases the possible number of weird folks shouting on street corners, it also increases the % of that type, just because of the stresses and total interactions and 'debates' between those whose anti-social behavior is borderline.

The thing we forget is that a small number of nuisances can cause more than their share of problems in here. In real life, at a party, perhaps, we can either ignore a bore or contentious person by walking away, or even throw them OUT. In here, their comments stay right there in front of you unless edited, and it is hard to get someone actually banned. Plus, the very nature of the format allows people to operate under fictitious names and leads some to do stuff they'd never DARE say or do to someone's face!

Although the total % of trouble makers is quite small, just a few remarks can reverberate through a lot of threads, and it takes not only special arrangements (filters, etc.) to ignore them, but a strong will to avoid responding when they hit one of your nerves.

I have always wondered at Max's reasoning for allowing as much as he does, and especially at allowing the vitriol from anonymous 'guests', but *shrug*....the benefits outweigh the problems for ME...so far.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:12 PM

Long Live the Joe.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Don Firth
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:20 PM

I object to any objections to Joe Offer!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Deckman
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:27 PM

Joe ... how does it feel to be treated as an OBJECT!! Bob

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:31 PM

I rather suspected that if I stated that I hoped a thread will be deleted or closed - that it would remain open. *Smiles*

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:34 PM

No. I have no objection to Joe, or the job he is doing.

8-{E

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:39 PM

"who on earth are you to think you have the right to question their judgement? They do the job, just as the person who makes the decision for your country does.....Let them do their job...to the best of their ability..." Georgiansilver

I was with you, Mike, until you got to this point. I not only do not object to Joe Offer but I feel gratitude and trust toward him. However, if you extend the subject to include those who "make the decisions for our country" - WRONG. It is our responsibility to question what they do in our name.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:50 PM

Oh Ebbie...........I rather think your leg is being pulled.

But there is nothing like the good old Mudcat double standard...

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Alba
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 06:56 PM

I object to Joe Offer being to objected to....
The objection is to what exactly?
Oh never mind.
Joe....I reject the objection to you regardless of it's objectivity.
Sometimes you can't do anything right when attempting to do the right thing as someone, somewhere will see it as the wrong thing in their book...

As to the Confession Session in the Open Forum....hey if it works for someone...should make for an interesting thread...LOL
Jude

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: DOpfer
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 07:00 PM

Off thread: I don't know about the main part of this thread, but about what brucie brought up, I believe that firefighters and police are probably two of the most second guessed professions where people's lives are at stake.

Do people really think we WANT to let that building burn, or that the low water pressure is OUR fault? And exactly what would THEY do that would have a DIFFERENT outcome? (I've actually asked that when my chief scolded me for my attack tactics. And police? Couldn't pay me enough!

Sorry for the off-thread ventin, but brucie's blurb struck a cord. (there cord, is that close enough of a music reference for the forum?) (;D>

Thanks,

DanO

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 07:12 PM

Dan, we could kick that one around for hours, and I think we'd have a few tales to tell each other. Open Mike would have a few to add I'm sure. Keep safe.

BM

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 07:53 PM

As this thread looks as if it not going deleted or closed (as was the originator's request) and it looks to be the only thread that will be safe from imposed deletion or closure by our volunteers – perhaps a little more explanation is required.

I have no objection to Joe Offer or any other poster. I have many objections to what Joe Offer does to our forum and to what he says on our forum and I tend to post and disagree with him strongly over these issues. However it may appear – I do try not make any public personal judgements and try very hard not to respond in kind to the many I do receive. The latter is not too difficult.

So despite the impression that may be given - I do not see our forum as a place where judging the worth – or the right of fellow posters to post what they wish to - is to be encouraged - as all are welcome to post equally.

Judging what a post says and deciding whether to respond or not – is enough judgement already.

We all like to gossip about and judge others but very few of us like to be gossiped about and judged ourselves. If we indulge in these things in public (on our forum) – chances are we will find ourselves judged and gossiped about in return –sometimes not very politely. And we respond and so on……….

Sometimes it appears that all this judgement is encouraged by the example currently being set. I fear that a thread title on our forum like 'Objection to …. ……' will only further encourage the idea that our forum is about posting personal judgements (good or bad) about fellow posters.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:00 PM

Shambles, the thread HAD been closed. I don't know who did it, but I'm fairly sure Joe was the one who re-opened it so he could post his message at 4:42.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:14 PM

Shambles- you should know by now that what the originator WANTS is seldom relevant to the life of a thread 'round these parts....

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:24 PM

Regarding Shambles request to have this thread deleted in his opening post, this<is like taking a shit in the middle of the floor expecting someone else<to clean it up for you,<possibly taking glee in watching the work you've made them do. When they decide to leave it lying around so everyone can see what sort of a person<you are, you can't blame them.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:51 PM

Ah, Rottweiler Jeri surfaces to protect her Mudcat knights in shining armor...

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 09:33 PM

the trolls are getting desperate!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:15 PM

I dunno. Jeri's post works for me.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,observer
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:21 PM

Well, let's see...

Which would I prefer?

a) a mudcat without The Shambles, or
b) a mudcat without Joe Offer?

Choice (a) would improve mudcat, and
Choice (b) would be disastrous

No contest is it???

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 10:58 PM

No contest there. If it were my call, it would be thus.

Jeri, got any toilet paper? We have an extra pile.

Mick

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 11:30 PM

If it were not for the interventions of Mr. Joe Offer and the kind benevolent prescence of Mr. Dick Greenhouse....

Mr. MAX would have flushed my prescence with the twist of wrist.

(Well Mr. Max tried a couple of times - but I stuck like a triple-flushing-turd to the toilet-bowl.

Thank You ALL

While I miss some old friends I offended (Mr. Seed etc) - in the old-Darwinian-days - you fought hard for a piece of turf....and the board, with its laize-faire approach was leaning towards counter-religions.

Mr. Shambles - if you read this post....stop complaining and START researching - post positive song threads....make additions....record what you find in local yard-sales......DRIVE THE HEATHENS from these shores of folk/blues traditions.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Inch by inch...over the past four years the umbelical-imbiciles have retreated into their ice-landic woes.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 May 05 - 02:37 AM

Hey, when El Greko confesses, we're going to sell tickets. Should be a great fundraiser for Mudcat...

I suppose I ought to confess that I closed the thread this morning at Shambles request, just because he wanted it closed. But then I've been wanting to tell my Fr. Joebro story all week, and didn't want to start a thread about it, and this one seemed as good as any, so I reopened it and told my story.

My reason for closing this thread in the first place was much weaker than the reasons for closing other threads. True, the thread shouldn't have been started in the first place. But since it was I figured it was a good enough place for my story, I reopened it. And it goes to prove the point of the story - ya can't please nobody none of the time, so you might as well do what you think is the right thing to do.

-Joe Offer-


As for Gargoyle accusing Dick Greenhaus and me of assisting his survival - well, I do like gargoyle, in a twisted sort of way.... I like Martin Gibson, too.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 01 May 05 - 04:29 AM

Sorry Ebbie...wasn't intending to get into deep political discussion...Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: EagleWing
Date: 01 May 05 - 06:21 AM

But there is nothing like the good old Mudcat double standard...

Talking of double standards - there is also the heads I win, tails you lose syndrome - as with your:
I rather suspected that if I stated that I hoped a thread will be deleted or closed - that it would remain open. *Smiles*

If it had been deleted you would have been proved right. Since it has not been deleted you can come up with smiles because your suspicions were right. Good one Shambles - and now for your next trick . . .

Frank L.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: EagleWing
Date: 01 May 05 - 06:32 AM

I have many objections to what Joe Offer does to our forum and to what he says on our forum and I tend to post and disagree with him strongly over these issues.

OUR forum Shambles? I hadn't realised it was ours. I thought it had an owner who kindly opened it to all and sundry. How many shares do you own in this public company? Or is it in the public domain?

I'm learning new things each day!

Frank L

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: EagleWing
Date: 01 May 05 - 06:47 AM

Joe's story about the time the priest didn't turn up struck a chord for me. (Off thread but why not?)

I'm a Baptist but I was temporarily working in a Catholic Primary School (4+ to 11). It was my turn for a class mass. I had trained the kids to do the prayers and to sing the hymns to my guitar accompaniment.

The parents had all arrived but no priest. The headteacher phoned around and none of the local priests or deacons seemed to be available. So I started the mass anyway.

Obviously, as a "protestant" I could not celebrate the communion but I did do a short homily assuring the parents that, although we could not partake in the bread and wine, yet Jesus' real presence was still there as he had promised that where two or three gather in his name he is there in the midst.

Despite the fact that some of those parents were died in the wool traditionalists, I received many words of thanks from parents and Headteacher. To the best of my knowledge there were no complaints - unless they went to the head and he did not pass them on.

Just to let Joe know that some people get away with it and to say how much I appreciate his work.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 May 05 - 07:23 AM

Oh no......I was just waiting and watching to see how long it would take..........***sigh***...............Eagle Wing, you've gone and done it now. (:<))

Ever since this no-win thread was atarted, I ve been waitng for Roger to drag it over to his favorite topic without seeming to do so at all. I bear you no ill will my friend, it was inevitable and someone was bound to give him the opening he's been longing for. Don't worry about it!!! We luvya' anyway!!!

Here is the particular line that opens the door:

OUR forum Shambles? I hadn't realised it was ours. I thought it had an owner who kindly opened it to all and sundry. How many shares do you own in this public company? Or is it in the public domain?


Sham, why not take a break? Give it a rest for awhile huh Roger? Go dig some termites or something...........

Spaw

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 May 05 - 07:33 AM

If it had been deleted you would have been proved right. Since it has not been deleted you can come up with smiles because your suspicions were right. Good one Shambles - and now for your next trick . . .

Frank L.

Thank you Frank. But I am but learning from the masters of the double standard here - and I still have a lot to learn from them yet. *Smiles*

OUR forum Shambles? I hadn't realised it was ours. I thought it had an owner who kindly opened it to all and sundry. How many shares do you own in this public company? Or is it in the public domain?

I'm learning new things each day!

So are all of - us on OUR forum.............

-----------------------------------------------------------------

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.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=14726&messages=56&page=1&desc=yes

-------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 26 Apr 05 - 06:25 AM

I have to agree with Joe – when he agrees with me – in the following http://www.mudcat.org/Detail.CFM?messages__Message_ID=1448049

Well, I have to agree with Shambles that Max seems to convey the idea that this is "our" forum. However, it also seems quite clear that very few of us want "our" forum to be taken over by those who would wish to make it a place of combat and chaos.

Sadly not all (of those who's views would appear to matter most) are in agreement with the idea that it is "our" forum…

From: Big Mick - PM
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

Censorship on Mudcat Has all the details and evidence. – Fot it would now appear - from Joe Offer's OFFICIAL brown words in that thread – that OUR forum is NOW to be only - for the convenience of our volunteers. Some of this select band -who will able to remain anonymous, whilst imposing their personal judgement upon fellow posters.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: matai
Date: 01 May 05 - 07:40 AM

Who's (Fr?) Joe Offer? (-:

They say whether negative or positive it's all publicity. So thanks I really enjoyed the priestly officiating story Joe. I've noticed whenever I open up these kinds of threads that something quite interesting often happens. Great that there are people here who know how to make silk purses.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:50 AM

Jeri said

Regarding Shambles request to have this thread deleted in his opening post, this is like taking a shit in the middle of the floor expecting someone else to clean it up for you,<possibly taking glee in watching the work you've made them do. When they decide to leave it lying around so everyone can see what sort of a person<you are, you can't blame them.

Not a yet another double standard here Jeri - is it?

You think it is wrong to shit on the floor and expect someone to clean it up - but OK when an anonymous volunteer does clean it up - but decides to shit on the floor again themselves? Shit is shit - no matter who shits it.

I think we should be be clear that the most harmful thing here is to encourage the idea that thread tiles like this one - inviting personal judgements upon fellow posters are acceptable. This concern was something that I had seen Joe express recently - so expecting some consistancy - I was amazed that when Joe thought he had to rush to impose his personal judgement upon fellow poster's contributions - and given a choice of 3 thread titles - that Joe decided to leave the thread title that invited personal judgements to be made of a fellow poster's right to post.

The ojections were NOT in fact TO the individual named - but what they posted and the potential offence and harm done by this content. This was the important issue. But our volunteers setting the example of actually choosing (out of a choice of 3) to leave that title in place and choosing (anonymously) to both delete and re-open this one - is I fear only going to encourage the idea that personal judgement of fellow posters is acceptable and starting threads - with titles to this end - is a good thing.

Perhaps it can finally be accepted that imposed censorship is DIFFICULT and PROBLMATIC. A case of being damned if you do and damned if don't. That is why - UNLESS YOU REALLY ARE FORCED TO - imposing your personal tastes upon the freely given contributions of others - without their knowledge or permission should NOT EVER be undertaken as a matter of routine. Which is now sadly the case.

What something appears to be the obvious solution - very often turns out in the long-run - not to be the easy option that it promised to be and sometimes becomes a far bigger problem that the one it was set-up to address. When the tail starts to wag the dog - it is often difficult to convince others that the dog is in fact as friendly as it is claimed to be.

Without being accused of a double standard - how can our volunteers now pursuade a poster starting a thread with a title that invited personal judgements of a named fellow poster - that this was not a practice to be encouraged?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: harpgirl
Date: 01 May 05 - 08:59 AM

I must certainly object to Joe Offer holding mass on mudcat.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 May 05 - 09:02 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 09:48 AM

Ya' know Roger, a lot of those 'Catters so concerned you say over Joe's censorship, appear to be asking for it over on the Mehlberg threads. Joe had plenty of time and opportunity to "impose his will" and did not. He posted later and explained some and asked for more input.

That's what goes on almost all of the time. Now go and dig a few termites or something and we'll talk again later..............

Spaw

Oh I think he did........*Smiles*

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Megan L
Date: 01 May 05 - 09:20 AM

Joe take heart, i'm sure the doctor could give you some relief from the shambling gibson syndrome :)

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jeri
Date: 01 May 05 - 09:28 AM

I said:
Regarding Shambles request to have this thread deleted in his opening post, this is like taking a shit in the middle of the floor expecting someone else to clean it up for you, possibly taking glee in watching the work you've made them do. When they decide to leave it lying around so everyone can see what sort of a person you are, you can't blame them.

Then Shambles said:
Not a yet another double standard here Jeri - is it?

You think it is wrong to shit on the floor and expect someone to clean it up - but OK when an anonymous volunteer does clean it up - but decides to shit on the floor again themselves?

And I say:

1) The short response: Duh? Hello? No, there isn't a double standard. Please figure this out on your own.

2) The long version:
Neither you nor GUEST can<read, can you? Please provide quotes from my post that support your interpretation of what I think which I quoted to look like this.

You've got people so crammed into roles and you ASSUME they'll follow your<little script that it makes you blind and deaf to what they actually DO say. You wind up just looking stupider than your<own role calls for when the person doesn't behave in the expected manner.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 May 05 - 09:44 AM

LOL spaw. I thought the same as soon as I read the question.

Jeri, I'll explain my (mk2) "autohambles" a little. It is currently loaded with 10 of shambles' quotes and 20 paragraphs taken from shambles' replies. It creates posts by randomly selecting 1 quote and 4 paragraphs of replies.

I have to say I'm quite proud of this masterpiece. In tests I have found it achieves precisely the same level of logic as the real shambles does...

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Alice
Date: 01 May 05 - 09:56 AM

Didn't have time to read the entire thread, but, Joe, I read your message about leading the Sunday worship when the priest didn't show up. Reminds me of that saying, "No good deed goes unpunished". I think you and all the volunteers are saints for taking on the time and effort to keep mudcat going.

Alice

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jeri
Date: 01 May 05 - 10:05 AM

Jeez, Jon! I didn't know you'd written a program(me)! Imagine what you could do if you used your powers to fight for the good of personkind! Got an autojoe yet?

What's also funny is your "LOL spaw" is to a Shambles paste from another thread. If I had broadband, I'd just copy and paste the whole censorship thread in here, because most of it will wind up here (repeatedly) anyway. That might mess up this thread though.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 01 May 05 - 10:06 AM

Alice - one of the more important requirements to be a saint - is that you are dead and whatever good you may have done in your life - you are not now able to do any further harm. LOL

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 May 05 - 10:42 AM

No Jeri, I can't do an autojoe, I think you would need to delve deeply into the realms of artificial inteligence before you could even make an attempt. One big problem I see is that an autojoe would have to "read" a post and put it in some form of context before producing a reasoned reply.

I suppose the autoshambles could be extended to produce extra functionality but that is rather difficult just working from the HTML. I don't think it would be of use to mankind but a more advanced version could for example.

1. monitor threads for title changes and generate an autocomplaint thread.

2. ditto for thread closures and deletion.

3. build up a table of links to ensure that every autocomplaint is crossreferenced in every other "censorsip" thread.

4. monitor threads for addition of brown text and autogenerate a reply questioning whether the opinion is personal or not.

5. Log the usage of "favourite qutotes" and set a desired frequency of including them, eg. If "don't sweat the rules" has not been used in the last 24hrs set its priority to urgent to ensure it will be used in the next autoreply, regardless of relevance.

6. etc.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: 42
Date: 01 May 05 - 11:05 AM

I'd like to know what happened to the priest!
j

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 May 05 - 11:28 AM

I support Shambles regarding censorship here.

This forum has some rules made up to protect certain individuals and ideologies. There are double standards here and it's free speech by convenience only.

Nonetheless, I think Joe is only human, and like any human, let's his own personal biases get in the way.

Silly to call it Max's forum and not OUR forum. I look at it as it is Max's forum for US.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Big Mick
Date: 01 May 05 - 11:47 AM

Semantics, Martin,nothing more. Max owns it, and if he decides not to pay the bill, it is history.

With regard to your free speech comments, it is hogwash. You want the freedom to call decent folks c**ts. You want the freedom to just trash folks that are trying to discuss issues with you, simply because they don't agree with your position. Your answer when logic fails you is to use filthy language and ignore the contentions. I have seen you, in other threads, have decent discussion. I wish you would do more of that.

Mick

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 May 05 - 11:53 AM

Big Mick, free speech is free speech. Yes, I think it is fine to tell you or someone they are full of shit if I think so.

Some like you offend too easily. You hit but you cry too loud when you are hit back harder.   I perceive it as your weakness, not mine.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Big Mick
Date: 01 May 05 - 12:03 PM

The difference, as I see it, is that when I answer your assertions, you fall back to namecalling and filth. I believe in hard debate, and strong defense of positions taken. I just don't go for the bomb lobbing method I have seen you use too often. I prefer this type of discourse.

But enough of what's wrong with Mick or Martin. Let's just do the discussion/debate and go from there.

Mick

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jeri
Date: 01 May 05 - 12:03 PM

Martin, it's YOUR problem when you can't get any message across, should you have one, because you can't stop yourself from being abusive.

Freedom of speech doesn't extend to people trying to verbal abuse. Oops - free speech doesn't even extend to privately owned websites.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 May 05 - 12:13 PM

Ah yes....Open it up and out he comes with all of his standard arguments. Nice you can get them all out so early Roger! But you did take mine out of the context of the situation. Notice I said Joe had asked for additional input. At the thime I posted, no changes had been made. Many others gave opinions to Joe and Joe requested them from others including John Mehlberg! The final decsion was okay with that group and satisfied several problems including ones of access. You knew that but using my post at that time looks so much better for YOU doesn't it? Dig termites Man....

JON, I had no idea you had actually created that program. It's beautiful, it really is. But I think you CAN do autojoe AND an autospaw as well. Here's how and WHY!!!!

As to how.....Since Roger has heard all of the answers a hundred times before, load up the answers to Sham's most popular 12 "concerns." Now spit out a sentence from each of a random three answers and you have autojoe! That's not what Joe does, but for all the good the other answers do, he might as well.

For autospaw, load up 12 answers and 12 insults and spit those out randomly. Same premise as with autojoe because Sham doesn't really pay any attention anymore. And one insult is as good as another.....

NOW.....WHY?????? Well, the next time one of these starts, you can spit out all three characters and split their responses over the first 30 posts. Should anyone else actually try to make sense of it, spit out another 10 following each real poster. This would make these threads go a lot faster if you wouldn't mind doing it!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 May 05 - 12:21 PM

"There are double standards here"
Tough... live with it or fuck off...

"when I answer your assertions, you fall back to namecalling and filth"
Most children do...

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 May 05 - 12:46 PM

But anyway, 42, I meant to tell what happened to the priest. He's 80, and drives to the church from his retirement home in Sacramento, 45 minutes away. During the service, I was a bit concerned that something bad had happened to him. I found out afterwards that he just got the schedule confused - which is easy to do because our parish has 3 churches and 4 priests. the pastor wasn't too happy with him for not showing up, though.
This retired guy is a crusty old Irishman, and he's quite a kick. He washed my feet on Holy Thursday, and then he took his pitcher of water and poured it down my pants leg. Then he looked up at me with a big grin and winked.
And it looks like this incident is ending my five years of blissful unemployment/retirement, because I accepted the job the pastor offered me. I'm actually going to get paid for being a lay minister, and it shouldn't take much more time than the volunteer work I'm already doing there. So, I'll still have time to annoy Shambles and defy his rules.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 May 05 - 12:57 PM

LAY Minister? Look Joebro.....I've always wanted to ask, what is a LAY Minister in charge of? And if not, congratulations anyway!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 01 May 05 - 01:09 PM

OK spaw, I'm not very good at this but I will set it out on a trial run of 3.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,autospaw
Date: 01 May 05 - 01:10 PM

You are acting like a brain dead zombie, get a friggin life.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,autospaw
Date: 01 May 05 - 01:11 PM

You demonstrate the inteligence of a brain dead zombie, learn to read.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,autospaw
Date: 01 May 05 - 01:11 PM

You are acting like a brain dead zombie, try to engange your brain once in a while.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,autospaw
Date: 01 May 05 - 01:11 PM

You are acting like a lesser spotted sea slug, get a friggin life.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Autoharpy
Date: 01 May 05 - 01:16 PM

Shambles is less offensive than Gibbon. The clonheads should go after him.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Autoharpy
Date: 01 May 05 - 01:18 PM

Shambles is less offensive than Gibbon. The cloneheads should go after him.

And fatherJoeautobro, , we better not be subjected to paragraphs from your sermons.
You're preachy enough as it is! LOL

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 May 05 - 01:26 PM

Aw, gee, Harpy. I thought you thought I was wise and kind and gentle and all that good stuff, and remarkably good-looking. Now I think you think I'm boring. Say it isn't so!
-Joebro-

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 03:52 PM

"Joe Offer, Lay Minister at Large"

This could be a sensational TV show. The oomph of "Touched by an Angel" and the pognency, poignency, poinensy, poginancy, touchingnessedness of "Little House on the Prairie". A mild-mannered fellow named Joe Offer stumbles into a telephone booth while talking with his friend, Robin. He changes into priestly garb and ministers to the angst-filled folks in the flock (notice the alliteration; that rolled off my fingers onto the keyboard; no applause necessary; it's a gift) while simultaneously attending to his responsibilities on the 'cat. This has possibilities. Real possibilities.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 01 May 05 - 03:54 PM

"Objections to Joe Offer"

I farted in the staffroom on Friday and many people objected. Does this thread title mean that they should send their objections to you?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 May 05 - 04:24 PM

Big Mick, I don't believe in hard debate. It's a waste of time here and proves nothing.

And Jeri, I seem to get my point across just fine. I can't help it if you have trouble with interpretations or just don't want to hear it because perhaps it offends you.

So, my rules and your rules aren't the same. So what?

I really don't feel that I have to sugar coat an opinion for you.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,autoharpy
Date: 01 May 05 - 05:12 PM

Oh but FatherJoebro....I do think you are wise, kind, gentle, and remarkably good looking.....and preachy!!!! I didn't say boring!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 01 May 05 - 10:03 PM

Hey, Joe: I bet you'd do a great job taking the offering..

Eat your heart out, Art..

Jerry

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 May 05 - 10:27 PM

I think you have it Jon! Now just let them all talk to each other and it will be the perfect thread!!!LOLOL!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 May 05 - 02:31 AM

So, I'll still have time to annoy Shambles and defy his rules.
-Joe Offer-

Is that really what all this is about for you?

If it is - we can perhaps see the size of the problem. The question is - how much more will you be prepared to sacrifice the basic freedoms of posters on OUR forum - to that end?

Unlike you - I have no wish to and can't now make any 'rules' to impose upon you or anyone else "to defy". I do make suggestions to try and ensure that all the 'rules' you now seem hellbent on imposing upon Mudcatters apply equally to everyone.

However, you reject any suggestions that may involve you and your volunteers having to also be seen to be subject to these same 'rules' or that require you or volunteers to be seen poenly to following any 'rules'.

All of this because you wish to annoy and defy me........? Why...?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,autoshamspawjoe
Date: 02 May 05 - 03:39 AM

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.

Some other volunteers use their 'editorial comments' to contribute to this discussion (so as not to refresh this thread). Any comment on the issue from anyone will be welcome (whatever their view). But you (as a known volunteer) refreshing this thread by making only one of your usual bullying personal attacks - will only make my point and just make things worse.

As site owner Max to me is the one GOD. The forum is not a demoracy and Max is omnipotent. However I would and do seriously doubt and question if this omnipotence is a quality that can ever be delegated without totally messing-up the rest of us mortals?

Our unknown and numberless volunteers are NOW able to shape our forum by what they choose to delete by the imposition of their judgement - it is not quite so easy for the rest of us to ignore this. Especially if your invited contribution is permanently lost when an entire thread is deleted. Not because there was anything wrong with it – but because our volunteers could not be bothered to take the time, to deal only with what they considered the offending post.

What appears to have happened and encouraged over time - is that although the house is big enough to accommodate all the parties - some posters seem to insist that the party that is not to their taste and which no one is forcing them to attend - is shut-down.....

You dumb aardvark crossed with a one testicled baboon, try to engange your brain once in a while.

The three-thread split ended up in a confusingly trifurcated discussion. The choice was made according to the content of the thread, not the title. Since we needed to get opinions to solve a problem, it seemed to make sense to channel all three into a single thread.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 May 05 - 04:01 AM

The current 'system' is not open, fair or have any clear objective.

Impositions of personal taste are made by our volunteers upon the contributions of fellow posters (mostly anonymously) - in a inconsistent and arbitary fashion. The result of which is that - each individual impostion has to be defended every time it is questioned - on it merits. And everyone is confused.

All of this has been going on and on for years on our forum. With those who fall victim posting to question these actions and those who are fortunate enough not to be the victim (yet) - blindly supporting all the justifcation given and all the susequent excuses given for the mistakes made by our volunteers.

Perhaps it is time for a change (on purely practical grounds) - for unless there is a change to a more open, fair and consistently objective approach to censorship - all of this division - is just set to grind on and on for years to come.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: kendall
Date: 02 May 05 - 08:09 AM

Our volunteers were chosen because they represent the majority here. What offends them, offends most of us. You trouble makers are always chirpping about "Free Speech", well, how about majority rules?

MG, you say you don't believe in debates because they accomplish nothing; ok, so what does name calling accomplish?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Amos
Date: 02 May 05 - 08:59 AM

Shambles,

Wakey, wakey, pal!!

Joe pulled your leg and you treated it with the same monotone victimized byzantine introspection as you treat everything else. For you to think he was serious is indicative of a serious failure to discriminate between reality and fiction.

I think you and Martin should take this dialogue off line until you can achieve a consensus about how bad things are, and then write up your findings in a concise, one-time only report on the catastrophic flaws of the Mudcat and its participants. Between his upside-down political views and your victim-oriented protestations there ought to be enough for a couple of pages worth if you edit it carefully.

A

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Juan P-B
Date: 02 May 05 - 11:01 AM

Have I missed something whilst I was away ?

Was there an offer on Joe (Buy one Joe, get one free)?? If so what was it and why did anyone object to said offer? Are people so cynical about offers these days?

I once saw a poster which said "Free Nelson Mandela" and underneath someone had written 'with every 5 gallons'

Will there be another Joe offer??

Juan P-B

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Donuel
Date: 02 May 05 - 11:12 AM

I've played the internet for over 10 years now.
I have seen several perfectly good forums brought to a grinding halt by frustrating the administrator that did all the hard work of diplomacy.

Even the most even temperments have their breaking point.

Predicting the the end of the Mudcat forum is a now brainer.

Nothing lasts forever.

Its end can only be hastened by an agenda of constant harrassment.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 May 05 - 01:19 PM

Its end can only be hastened by an agenda of constant harrassment.

Then tell our volunteers to stop this constant harrasment.........

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 May 05 - 01:23 PM

What really hurts Shambles, is the ugly fact that Joe prefers GARGOYLE and Martin Gibson to him.

Shambles, I am sure that he doesn't dislike you as a person, because Joe, as a good Christian, knows that we all have our flaws and are all God's Children--it's just that love them or hate them(and usually it is a mixture of both), Gargoyle and Martin both get to the point, and get off to let others take their best shot. You don't. YOU JUST GO ON AND ON AND ON AND ON--

I try to read your posts, I really do, but it is duller, and less rewarding than reading the phone book.
Try participating in a discussion, instead of just pasting the same tired volumes.

When Gargoyle tells you that you are a pathetic loser, or when Martin calls you a leftist anti-semite, you know they cared enough to read your post. Take a lesson from them.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 May 05 - 01:44 PM

When Gargoyle tells you that you are a pathetic loser, or when Martin calls you a leftist anti-semite, you know they cared enough to read your post. Take a lesson from them.

Ted - you are pathetic loser and a leftist anti-semite.

Is that better? Am I learning?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Donuel
Date: 02 May 05 - 01:45 PM

Likes MG?
sort of.
It is just to cover a spoof.

The only post I have ever had erased however (today) was 3 questions regarding MG.

Deleted 3 "questions" because they were a personal attack.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 May 05 - 01:59 PM

What really hurts Shambles, is the ugly fact that Joe prefers GARGOYLE and Martin Gibson to him.

*Smiles*

Perhaps the anonyomous volunteer who post editorial comments in red and has just imposed their judgement on Donuel's questions (twice) - was not Joe Offer? In that case - I am sure that it will be re-instated as soon as Joe wakes-up......And then deleted again...

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 May 05 - 02:57 PM

Shambles, maybe you were not active at Mudcat during the time period when Joe began indexing and consolidating. As I recall, it was a time when many then-active Mudcatters were noticing that after a few years of Forum posts had piled up, it was getting harder and harder to find things.

I know he started doing it just after I finished a very long project on JUST ONE SONG, trying to sort out the mess of posts and cross-posts and thread-drifted contributions about a Cape Breton song-- sorting out how many actually-different songs there were that people tended to confuse with each other; sources, etc. I remember thinking at the time he started sorting the threads a bit, "Wow, that would make life a lot easier, and I'd never have to waste time doing THAT again!"

It wasn't even a song I cared about personally-- just a response to a very, very confused song request I decided to try to answer.

Also, when I first worked on the spirituals, the old search process involved reading through sometimes a hundred or more old threads to see if a song I was looking for was even MENTIONED, much less posted! This also changed for the better while I worked on the project, thanks to Joe's creativity in tackling the problem, and the enthusiastic response of forum members as he introduced it. And again, I was really happy to see Mudcat evolve towrd better organization.

It was part of the culture of the community that indexing was widely seen as a good thing, and Joe was quite open about how he was going to go about it. No one pulled a fast one.

The solutions that emerge at Mudcat can only emerge when there is enough hindsight, enoug time passed, that one can see what the problem is and how it can best be solved to suit the needs of the people active at Mudcat. The problems and the solutions often surface when a number of people begin to say, "I'm trying to follow the suggestions y'all gave on how to use these resources, but it isn't working for me because xxxxxxxxx." This continues into present time-- people make suggestions, they are discussed, the tech side is considered, and eventually something is tried to see if it makes things better. Generally, they do make things better. I know of one change under consideration, for instance, that a lot of people might really like-- having the Blickifier on the personal page like it is on the forum threads. (How many times have I wanted to send a link via PM and wondered if I screwed it up making it myself?)


If you missed all that (in addition to missing the message-retitling feature discussed elsewhere), all these years, perhaps you might want to consider that not everything about Joe's leadership is or has been as you have thought.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 May 05 - 03:02 PM

Good. But you should have chosen between "Is that better?" and Am I learning?" rather than using them both. Brevity is....well you know--

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 02 May 05 - 03:34 PM

If you missed all that (in addition to missing the message-retitling feature discussed elsewhere), all these years, perhaps you might want to consider that not everything about Joe's leadership is or has been as you have thought.

Susan - Obviously not - I certainly missed the point and the process by which any poster was appointed to be or appointed themselves to be our leader....I still thought Max was our leader...

The point about indexing is the same point about our volunteers offering to protect us from abusive postings, spam and the Black Death etc. It all sounds very reasonable but all it ends up doing in practice is limiting the ordinary poster's freedoms and allowing some people to impose their taste upon the freely given contibutions of others - without their knowledge or consent and as a matter now of routine. Mainly - it would seem - because they want to and now feel qualified to sit in judgement on the worth of others.   

Perhaps indexing and the changing titles is fine - however I do not see much wrong with the search facilities here - as a means of finding things. But why do so many changes have to be imposed upon fellow poster's contributions - without their knowledge or consent or any attempt to obtain it?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 02 May 05 - 03:49 PM

" why do so many changes have to be imposed upon fellow poster's contributions - without their knowledge or consent or any attempt to obtain it?"

Because it is better that way. And there really AREN'T that many changes, anyway.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 02 May 05 - 03:50 PM

BTW---100

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 05 - 03:53 PM

Isn't this just turning inot another "Censorship on Mudcat" thread.
Please no more......enough already Shambles you have a whole thread to yourself on this subject....
Take break get out for a walk or something...PLEASE

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 May 05 - 04:07 PM

Roger, give me a break-- "Leadership," in the sense I used it and which you mischaracterize in your response to me, is something that has many levels and faces, everywhere. Joe's leadership IN THE SITUATIONS I DESCRIBED is what I meant.

Why don't you take some leadership yourself and do something PRODUCTIVE to contribute, instead of sniping at others' duly authorized leadership? I mean, really, why-- I'm asking it as a question.

If you mean that you missed somehow that Joe has been asked and is supported to do all he does-- ASK MAX.

~S~

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: jpk
Date: 02 May 05 - 05:06 PM

well i have no objections to offer objecting to the objections to joe offer's,offer.end of offer.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 02 May 05 - 05:43 PM

I'm glad you said that. My sentiments exactly. (I hope you said a good thing.)

Shambles, on the scale of human achievement, Joe is doin' real good. Let him do what he's gotta do. It's part of life you'll have to come to accept. If there had been an inherent unfairness/discrimination against folks here there would be more than two or three people complaining about it. Take a look. G'head. Got the picture?

Joe and the Clones do a great job keeping things together and coherent. Go start your own forum--they are available for free on Yahoo (and maybe MSN). Those who are so offended by the 'heavy hand of censorship' on the Mudcat will follow you there and you can all be happy together--well, the two or three of you who are offended. YOU are like a friggin' virus that mutates every thread into some damned thing to do with censorship. Face facts: you want to complain.

Please let us all know what your new site is and how to get to it. I look forward to a visit.

BM

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Big Mick
Date: 03 May 05 - 01:04 AM

Congratulations, Roger. You sucked them in again. Good lad.

Mick

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 May 05 - 02:29 AM

M.Ted says (and is entitled to in as many words as he wishes without an judgement from me).

What really hurts Shambles, is the ugly fact that Joe prefers GARGOYLE and Martin Gibson to him.

Ted - are you saying that Joe Offer does not like me? *Smiles*


Not sure how M.Ted knows this. But why would I wish to be liked by Joe (or any other poster) and why would I be hurt if Joe did not like me.

If this mattered and if that was my objective - getting Joe to like me would be rather easy - wouldn't it? For all I would have to do is to agree to everything he does or says and post nice flattering things about his 'leadership'.

I don't agree with very much Joe now says or does to our forum (and I post to say so) - but I also don't see why any fellow poster should be now expected to do this. Or to be expected to like Joe or to be liked by Joe.

I would like to think that all contributors are entitled to receive respect for their views and to give equal respect to the views of others - expressed in the words and manner of their choice.

Being able to freely express and evidence my view and enable others to do this - is all I am interested in. Facilting in enabling me and other fellow posters to express their view - and not (anonymously) judging our worth to post and imposing their personal taste upon fellow posters - is all Joe and his volunteers should be interested in.

My view - as a long-term poster - is that sites where our volunteers feel qualified to impose as much judgement and as many rules as they wish - and wish to be seen as the most important priority - are out there for them to join or to create. The Mudcat Forum is NOT that place - it would never had become the fine forum (that it just about struggles to remain) - if it was that place.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 May 05 - 05:03 AM

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 02 May 05 - 03:49 PM

" why do so many changes have to be imposed upon fellow poster's contributions - without their knowledge or consent or any attempt to obtain it?"

Because it is better that way. And there really AREN'T that many changes, anyway.


Why is it thought better to impose this - and to whom is it better – posters who know they will always themselves be safe from any imposed changes to their contributions and show no concern for others who may not be so fortunate?

As to the opinion that there AREN'T many changes imposed upon fellow posters – the following thread contains the evidence to the contrary. Including two recent cases where the routine imposition by anonymous volunteers was found to be mistaken and had to be CHANGED BACK.

Censorship on Mudcat

Is even one imposed change without a fellow poster's knowledge and consent (where there are no urgent concerns) – one too many?


But let's look and all the personal judgements involved and the number of imposed changes - needed to be justified by our volunteers - on this issue alone. To protect us from what terrible harm – exactly?

The imposed closure of two entire threads and the leaving of one thread in the music section called 'Objections to 'FELLOW POSTER' – by a named volunteer.

The (then anonymous) closure (at the request of the originator) of this thread called Objections to 'FELLOW POSTER'.

The re-opening of this thread called Objections to a 'FELLOW POSTER' by a named volunteer (without the originator's knowledge or consent).

The imposed moving of this thread called 'Objections to 'FELLOW POSTER' to the B/S section whilst leaving the thread called Objection to a 'FELLOW POSTER on the music- related section.

That is just the story – so far. Now is there anything demonstrated in this evidence – that is open, fair or showing any clear and consistent objective about our current censorship, so-called 'system'?

When you may not know what to do – for the best – to prevent yourself from making matters worse and doing the wrong thing. The very best thing – is to do nothing. The more judgements that our volunteers think they need to urgently impose upon their fellow posters - as a matter now of routine – the more chances there are of making a mistake, giving out the wrong message, confusing posters and making matters worse.

Posters loyally defending - (mainly because our volunteers are thought well-intentioned) - all the excuses and justification given of all this of this imposition by our volunteers is only going to make matters worse – in the long run. It is time for a re-think - before it is too late.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 May 05 - 09:17 AM

I've hit on an idea. I've taken the old Cold Fusion code I posted a link to in one of these threads and have re-written it in ASP/VB.

Shambles can now have his own forum. One pretty faithful to the original program (and I assume early Mudcat) with no later Mudcat additions/enhancements, no Joe or clones, etc.

Here you are Shambles have fun.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: nutty
Date: 03 May 05 - 09:34 AM

How about building him a website as well Jon .... then he could spend all day arguing with himself.

The censorship debate would be fascinating.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 03 May 05 - 10:09 AM

"Congratulations, Roger. You sucked them in again. Good lad."

You are part of the they you mention, Mick.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 May 05 - 10:26 AM

Well I could nutty... The best I can do at the second as subdomains are not working is http://www.folkinfo.org/shambles/

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 03 May 05 - 12:27 PM

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-

There is nothing like an open censorship 'system' with a consistent approach and one that treats all posters equally. And from the evidence provided here - our so-called 'system - is obviously nothing like this.

Perhaps it is now time to review current practice - and change it to something that cannot be thought secretive, unfair, arbitrary and which imposes upon the basic freedoms of ordinary posters the most. To one that can be honestly defended by all Mudcatters - without causing them embarrassment that reading the currently attempted defence of this 'system' does.

Unless it is reviewed and changed - the hypocrisy entrenched in this 'system' and the customary 'stone-wall defence of it - will just continue to feed and encourage those who are described as 'trouble makers' and cause yet more needless division.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Kim C
Date: 03 May 05 - 12:48 PM

I object to the objections. Can't believe you are all actually wasting time over this. Can't we all just get along? Sheesh.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 May 05 - 04:10 PM

Unreal Jon.....Very nice.

Shambles, Jon has put it together for you and I am sure you can "advertize" your threads here and invite interested 'Catters to join you in a place where no censorship is imposed.

You have beaten this subject to death here at Mudcat and when I read you saying you'd be happy just to get your views out here........Well Sham, you oughta' be not just happy but positively orgasmic!!! You have made the same points in at least 10 different ways each. Not much more you can do here.

So why not take Jon up on his offer and create the new forum by starting some topics of interest and issuing invites to join you in the discussion over there. Go for it!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: M.Ted
Date: 03 May 05 - 04:21 PM

Well, Shambles, I actually read other people's posts;-)

>As for Gargoyle accusing Dick Greenhaus and me of assisting his survival - well, I do like gargoyle, >in a twisted sort of way.... I like Martin Gibson, too.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: harpgirl
Date: 03 May 05 - 04:47 PM

I agree with KimC.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 03 May 05 - 06:00 PM

It would be wise to always agree with our volunteers.

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-
From the following thread.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=56969#894819

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Guy Wolff
Date: 03 May 05 - 07:22 PM

I am so happy that Mudcat is still around and happily Max gets help around the edges .Thank you Joe for trying to keep order in our Bedlam . It isnt an easy job . All the best to all here . Guy

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 03 May 05 - 10:25 PM

Roger, if I am ever in deep shit, and the tenacity of my rescuer has to be the ultimate in tenacity, I hope it's you there to get my ass outta the fire. You are driving me nuts. But Roger, I like you.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Alba
Date: 03 May 05 - 11:08 PM

Roger...Please click here: The effect your having on me now!!!
I do believe I have developed a twitch...lol
Blessings
Jude:>)

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 03 May 05 - 11:22 PM

I am going thru a change, Roger. This ain't a good thing, IMO.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 May 05 - 01:48 AM

That is just the story – so far. Now is there anything demonstrated in this evidence – that is open, fair or showing any clear and consistent objective about our current censorship, so-called 'system'?

The latest twist (though perhaps not the last one) is that the following change appears NOW to have been imposed by a named volunteer. Or perhaps they obtained the originator's permission first?


Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 03 May 05 - 09:12 PM

I think it's time to change the title of this thread to something everybody will understand. I also thought I'd include the messages on this subject from the Help Forum. The last message is especially good. -Joe Offer-

That thread is now called Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu

---

Shambles suggested that it was inappropriate to have John's name in the thread title, so I took his advice. Thanks for the suggestion, Shambles.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Sorcha
Date: 04 May 05 - 01:59 AM

Shambles, I usually stay OUT of this kind of threads, but tell me this.....just WHY are you still here if you hate it that much? Come on, it's a simple answer....

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 May 05 - 02:50 AM

Shambles, I usually stay OUT of this kind of threads, but tell me this.....just WHY are you still here if you hate it that much? Come on, it's a simple answer....

Simple answer ---- to a not so simple question.

Because I don't hate many things - certainly not our forum.

And I do love many things - including the basic right for people to be able to express their view here - without personal judgement being made of them and the 'rules' views and personal taste of others being imposed upon them.

Perhaps as you have now posted to this thread - you could also be asking why certain posters think they are qualified to impose their judgement upon their fellow posters? There are some practical difficulties in this I know - as some of these volunteers are anonymous. But that appears to be OK?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 04 May 05 - 03:43 AM

Subject: Objection to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Apr 05 - 08:19 AM

Objections to John Mehlbeher

[snip]
I have no objection to John Mehlberger nor any other poster. I probably do have an objection to threads being started that have a poster's name and invitations for fellow posters to pass their personal judgement.

Perhaps a better example can be set?
[snip]

Shambles now objects:

That thread is now called Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 May 05 - 05:38 AM

Shambles suggested that it was inappropriate to have John's name in the thread title, so I took his advice. Thanks for the suggestion, Shambles.
-Joe Offer-

I am not sure that my advice would ever have been to impose any action on any of the three threads nor to impose a change to that - or any other thread title without the originator's knowledge or consent.

I have made other suggestions..... But most – if not all of these tend to be thought (by Joe Offer) too be problematic and are rejected. Such as the one in this thread. Censorship on Mudcat


Joe am I take it from this as OFFICIAL that my suggestion is rejected and that you intend to carry on imposing your personal tastes upon the titles chosen by fellow posters - as you wish - without their knowledge or consent? Or (as it is NOT in brown writing) is this just you expressing your personal opinion?

{The following in brown writing}
Yes, Shambles, you may take that as official. Your proposal has been noted, but it has been rejected because it imposes a cumbersome procedure and restriction upon our volunteers, a procedure which appears to be unnecessary. Note, however, that efforts ARE made to respect and preserve the thread originator's work. Ordinarily, the original thread title remains intact in the original message in the thread. Also, thread titles are usually altered by augmentation of the original title by the addition of a clarifying word or phrase, preserving the original title if space allows. If it appears that a thread originator may have trouble locating the thread after a title change, the originator is usually contacted by e-mail or personal message with information on how to locate the thread.
-Joe Offer-

Which to me reads that 'efforts ARE made (by our volunteers) to respect and preserve the thread originator's work' – BUT if our volunteers do not wish to make the effort first (even when there is no urgency required) – our volunteer's wishes - even those of anonymous ones - should now on our forum be thought to take priority over the wishes of ordinary Mudcatters and their freely given contributions to the Mudcat community.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: kendall
Date: 04 May 05 - 08:02 AM

As far as I can see, the only thing that is forbidden here is personal attacks. What is wrong with that?

---

Well, there are a few other things, but they're relatively rare. We don't allow Spam or racism, and we don't allow lengthy non-music copy-paste posts (we encourage people to post the entire text of music information they find, and ask them to include attribution). We reserve the right to delete messages in other situations where a need may arise, but I can't think of any such situations now.
And we view thread and message titles as indexing tools that are to be used to help Mudcatters determine the contents of a thread or message. We do change thread titles and move messages to consolidate duplicate threads as part of our indexing process. And we do occasionally close threads for various reasons - but people are free to start a new thread or post to a related thread if there's a need.
The "Mehlberger" thread title was changed to enable visitors to understand what the thread contains without knowing who John Mehlberg(er) is. The Girvan thread will be changed sooner or later to something like Girvan (folk festival 2005). Threads titled "Lyr req: Lyrics Request" are routinely changed to "Lyr req:" plus song title.
With the few exceptions mentioned above, the contents of messages are rarely changed. This is a fairly comprehensive explanation of our editing policy. Does anybody but Shambles object?
The Editorial Policy is here (click) in the FAQ, last revised in 2003.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Alba
Date: 04 May 05 - 09:40 AM

Oh Kendall now youve done it...:>)
Be prepared for a bountiful script of the many things that at are "forbidden" according to Roger on his Forum, sorry, OUR forum, oh I mean MAX's Forum......twitch, tick, oh dear...have to go...getting that feeling again..lol
Blessings
Jude

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 May 05 - 10:23 AM

As far as I can see, the only thing that is forbidden here is personal attacks. What is wrong with that?

If this - what many folk honestly believe is the case - were in fact the case - I wouldn't be providing all this evidence to clearly demonstrate otherwise. Or feel that I needed to.

Only for this evidence to be mostly ignored and for folk to still carry on expressing opinions that simply fly in the face of the facts. And for folk to be encouraged post to call me names, tell me to shut-up and to go away.

The facts can be found on the following thread. Censorship on Mudcat

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: M.Ted
Date: 04 May 05 - 10:23 AM

Roger likes to suggest things and then complains if you don't do what he asks, and and complains if you do. Two examples at least are documented in this thread--I think we should hand him over to the folks on the "Assaults Upon Teachers" thread who want to reinstate corporeal punishment.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 04 May 05 - 10:26 AM

Helllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllpuh

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 May 05 - 11:15 AM

Oh Kendall now youve done it...:>)
Be prepared for a bountiful script of the many things that at are "forbidden" according to Roger on his Forum, sorry, OUR forum, oh I mean MAX's Forum......twitch, tick, oh dear...have to go...getting that feeling again..lol
Blessings
Jude

Please get this right - it is now JOE's FORUM on JOE's CAFE and only Joe will tell you what's forbidden.

'Learn to live with it' OK?

*Smiles*

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 04 May 05 - 11:45 AM

Roger, you say:
"If this - what many folk honestly believe is the case - were in fact the case - I wouldn't be providing all this evidence to clearly demonstrate otherwise. Or feel that I needed to."
You claim here the fact that you feel you need to provide evidence, and that you provided the exerpts earlier, as evidence in itself. "I feel the need to provide evidence, I provide evidence, so clearly that fact is evidence". Sorry, Rog, that is a perfectly circular argument, and counter to any logic. You just invalidated your argument.

You then go on to say:
"Only for this evidence to be mostly ignored and for folk to still carry on expressing opinions that simply fly in the face of the facts. And for folk to be encouraged post to call me names, tell me to shut-up and to go away."
You state yourself that this "evidence" is ignored by people, and they express opinions counter to yours. Is that not evidence that you stand alone in your claims therefore?

I will not even go into how you painted yourself into a corner with the start of your 5:38AM post. Joe offered an olive branch and you took it and attempted to hit him with it! Not nice, I thought...

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 May 05 - 12:05 PM

George I confess that I am a truly terrible person..............

But what has that got to do with moderatly expressing and evidencing an honest opinion on the Mudcat Discussion Forum?

Are terrible people like me - now forbidden to do this?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 04 May 05 - 12:30 PM

There, there, Roger you are not a terrible person.   Don't go all defensive... I just said that I thought one particular action was "not nice" - that hardly characterises anybody as "terrible" now!

My Mum used to say "there are no bad people about - we know that, because all the bad ones are in jail".

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 04 May 05 - 12:35 PM

Apocalypse NOW!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 04 May 05 - 12:39 PM

But what has that got to do with moderatly expressing and evidencing an honest opinion on the Mudcat Discussion Forum?

Shambles, based on your posting history you have never "moderatly expressed" your opinion. That is part of the problem people have with your posts. They are endlessly repetitive.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: JedMarum
Date: 04 May 05 - 01:24 PM

Wow - how did I miss out on all this fun???

I stumbled into this thread, checking to see if Jeri was still posting at MC, since I haven't seen anything from her in a while ... and what fun do I find? This thread, this tempest in a teacup, this "only at Mudcat" style disucssion!


I loved your Sunday Mass story Joe - GOOD FOR YOU. I wish I'd been there!

Great post Jeri - re: sh*tting in the middle of the room ...

As for Objections to Joe??

I love Joe Offer. Thanks for all you do at Mudcat ... and as someone more clever then me said above, I object to the objectors!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: kendall
Date: 04 May 05 - 02:01 PM

Ok Joe, I guess I spoke too soon. I see racist remarks as personal attacks.
Anyway, if I had to make a list of the most forbidden posts, personal attacks would be number 1.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 May 05 - 02:26 PM

They are endlessly repetitive.

But repetitively moderate.

This despite of lot of - much less moderate provocation. Which tends to be equally or even more repetitive and seldom actually addresses the issue.


For the true test of our forum now - is not how well it treats the compliant poster but how well it accommodates our 'trouble makers'. These defined as anyone (even long-term posters) who may have suffered at their hands and who may not post to say that everything that Joe Offer and his anonymous volunteers are doing to our forum is quite so wonderful.

For both sides of this may even be equally right. How you see something - simply depends on the view you have from where you are sitting.

Our volunteer or fellow posters - simply judging and being encouraged to judge - a so-called 'trouble-maker's worth as a poster - does not solve the problem - it just causes more division and ill-feeling. If a more imaginitive and realistic solution is not found of accommodating all views - I fear there will be many more trouble-makers created - than there will be loyal subjects and true followers.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 04 May 05 - 02:38 PM

the same arguments repeated endlessly even if individually moderate make the entire effort immoderate.

A half cup of ice cream is a moderate serving. 150 half cup servings of ice cream is extreme.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 May 05 - 02:57 PM

No one is being force to eat it - are they?

Folk could just choose to eat the ice cream of course - but it thought is far more fun to gang-up and call it names and question what make ice cream think it belongs in an ice cream parlour.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 04 May 05 - 03:11 PM

I don't understand the second sentence Roger - could you please explain?

As for the first, well, you are forcing us to eat it. Only today you suggested that scanning through 900 posts of another thread on a similar topic was not too much in your view.

As someone who wants to continue being informed by this thread - and the other one - could I request: "No more ice cream, please"?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 04 May 05 - 03:14 PM

Folk could just choose to eat the ice cream of course - but it thought is far more fun to gang-up and call it names and question what make ice cream think it belongs in an ice cream parlour.

???

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 May 05 - 03:53 PM

Speaking about ice cream....

Mama, can I get an ice cream?
No, you can't.
Mama, why can't I get an ice cream?
Because it is close to dinner time?
Mama, what has dinner time to do with ice cream?
I want that you get something real to eat
Mama, why is ice cream not real?
It is as real as anything else, but if you eat an icecream now you will not eat enough of the nourishing food
Mama, do I get an ice cream?
NO, SHUT UP NOW, you get on my nerves.
Why do you scream at me, Mama, when I'm only asking politely?
Cause I've other things to do.
If you've got other things to do, Mama, why do you scream?
-----
Mama, but why can't I get an ice cream? I'm only asking politely.
Because too much ice cream is not good for you.
Now, Mama, you change your reasons, what is it? Is too much ice cream bad for me or just does it make me eat less from what is good?
I can't argue all day with you. That's both the same. I've heard what you want and the answer is no. NO!
Mama, but why can't I get an ice cream now?
OH STOP IT and FUCK OFF
Mama, do you think using swear words is a good example for me to follow?....
No but it's you who makes me do it.
Me, but I haven't uased swear words as you have
No, you haven't but you repeatedly ask the same question and don't listen to my response.
I do listen but you give me conflicting reasons why I can't get an ice cream
---
Do I get one or not?
No
But why no?
Because
Is that a reason or is it just your whim?
You don't listen to my reasons
Was saying 'because' a reason?
You can say what you want you won't get an ice cream
Was saying 'because' a reason?
No and you know that. Now go play something else.
But if you have no reason as you now admitted yourself why can't I get an ice cream?

The mention of the ice cream made me going off on a tangent. Sorry for the thread creep. Now back to the theme of the thread.


Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: jpk
Date: 04 May 05 - 04:42 PM

i would object to the rejection of my objections,but since i have no real objections to offer,i retract my objection to the rejection of my offer to object to Offers,offer

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 04 May 05 - 05:02 PM

Just to keep some reference to music in here, anyone remember Smokey Joe's Cafe by the Robins?

Jerry

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 May 05 - 05:17 PM

Haven't read the whole damn thing, but Wolfgang that was BRILL! LMAO!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 04 May 05 - 05:35 PM

Now I know what Shambles does for a living - he's a political speech writer. I'm guessing for George Bush Jr. The wisdom, the clarity of thought - it's all there.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 04 May 05 - 05:57 PM

And what do you do for a living? Sell dope?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jeri
Date: 04 May 05 - 06:16 PM

I'm just trying to figure out what Ben & Jerry would name ice cream that thinks. 'NietzschePeazche' just isn't funny enough. I'm also wondering how it would feel about being eaten, and how long after being eaten would it retain its ability to think.

As for WHAT it would think... At any point in the digestive process, "Oh shit!" is undoubtedly an appropriate thought. Would it miss its cherry, if said cherry had been stolen? On a hot day, would it sound like the Wicked Witch of the West? Was she possibly ice cream in disguise?


THAT was funnier than some stuff Catspaw comes up with on purpose!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 04 May 05 - 06:48 PM

Dunno Jeri but Ice-stein would seem to me a name for a clever thinking ice-cream.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 May 05 - 02:20 AM

As no one is forcing anyone to open any thread. There seems little point in posters choosing not only to open it but to then post and refresh the thread to complain in many and varied ways - simply to judge that its contents (or certain posters) are not to their taste.

If you don't like lots of ice cream - there seems little point of entering an ice cream parlour in the first place - let alone then sitting down to repeatedly complain about the amount of ice cream and its ingredients and to praise each other for each attempt. Why not just leave it to those who lots of ice cream is to their taste?   

As someone who wants to continue being informed by this thread - and the other one - could I request: "No more ice cream, please"?

You could and you did - but if you accept that this IS an ice cream parlour (amongst other things) - why enter if you don't like lots of ice cream. Our forum has always catered for all tastes.

I'll have a 99 - please.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 May 05 - 02:34 AM

Wolfgang.

A slightly shorter fairy story.

Two grown adults often go in to an ice cream parlour together.

Then one day of them asks for an ice cream - and one then tells the other that he will not allow his equal to have the ice cream of his choice.

One of these adults is sorely tempted to punch his companion right on the nose - but resists this temptation and concentrates on trying to again reach the situtation where they - and everyone else could again visit the ice cream parlour as equals and all the arguments caused by the assumption and heavy-handed imposition of authority - could cease.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 05 May 05 - 03:38 AM

Make mine a 100.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 05 May 05 - 04:20 AM

Then one day of them asks for an ice cream - and one then tells the other that he will not allow his equal to have the ice cream of his choice.

But that did not happen here... One day the shop owner said to one of his customers "you have been a really good customer. This shop is getting busier and is more than I can handle on my own. Could you help me with some of the work round here"?

Over time the shop owner needed more help and took on more assistants. While most customers were happy with this arangement, one customer got upset but could not face up to the reality that the shop owner had appointed these people. To satisfy his own illusion, he created a situation in his mind whereby the assistants had appointed themselves.

These days he doesn't come in for ice cream much but instead comes in to criticise those appointed by the shop owner. He becomes more bitter and twisted by the day and can't understand why people can't take his complaints seriously. He is so lost in his fantasy that any sense of reality or logic is wasted on him.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 May 05 - 05:16 AM

Yes Jon - I am a truly terrible person. That is your view - which as far as I am concerned - you can express here as many times and in as many way as you wish (as you already have many times).

But the point is however you or Joe and his anonymous volunteers may judge mine or the worth others and whatever abuse you may subject us to - we remain as posters and are equally entitled to moderatly express our view from where we sit - (as many times as we may think is required). You are not forced to read it or respond.

The idea that I am the only poster who does not think that every thing that Joe Offer and his anonymous volunteers do to our forum - is unquestionably wonderful - is not supported by the facts. The only means of me finding out exactly what has really been happening in the last few years - is when posters complain about their treatment or question where their contributions had gone. There are no shortage of these.

If you treat children as you would treat adults - they tend to respond better than if you treat them as children.

If you treat adults as would treat children - they tend to behave like children.

If you deny your child the ice cream they request - to establish whose decision this is or to maintain control for the sake of it - children tend to see through this very quickly. If this is the reason why you wish to deny them an ice cream - sometimes it is better just to let them have the bloody ice cream. For in any subsquent argument - the child will be perfectly correct - however irrational both sides become.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 May 05 - 05:54 AM

Make mine a 100.

*Smiles*

We have been there Ted – in the Censorship on Mudcat thread.

There - your 100 was snatched away. And then - when it was all runny – you were allowed to have it again.......Kid's stuff eh?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 05 May 05 - 06:32 AM

Monty Python: "This is getting silly...". We have a number of threads (at least 5) at the moment which deal with the same complaints essentially - though some of those threads were started for different reasons. Worst example is the "Bawdy titles" thread, which is now diverted to discuss the length of titles ordinary posters can use versus the equivalent that the editorial team are allowed.

This is getting detrimental to Mudcat, its main function and purpose. I suggest therefore that we consolidate all complaints about the running of Mudcat into a single permathread, which can be used by those who wish to discuss something there, or ignored by those who do not; leaving thus the remainder of the index free for more pertinent (or in the case of the BS section more "impertinent"?) matters.

The permathread could have capital letters, so it would be easy to spot. Something like MUDCAT COMPLAINTS BOX. Any new complaints threads would be consolidated into it, with out the approval of the originators being necessary. Just a matter of sweeping up all complaints into a single area.

That way Max (and anyone else) would have a single place to look for any complaints or suggestions about the running of Mudcat, instead of them being strewn all over the forum.

Roger, you could start it off, and I am sure Joe would turn it into a Permathread for you, with yourself having sole editorial control - nobody else. I am suggesting you for two reasons: a) You have brought out the biggest number of complaints, which to date have mostly not been satisfied, and b)you clearly have an interest (more so than the majority) in improving the forum and ridding it of inadequacies and inequalities.

You could start it off, Roger, with a summary of the complaints to date - as Gervase suggested -, preferably without undue copying and pasting to make points, but rather using your own words to explain each issue, clearly and succinctly.

Over and out, Roger (did I just cross metaphors?) *smile*

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Zany Mouse
Date: 05 May 05 - 09:01 AM

The title of this thread is very sad indeed. I met Joe once about 3/4 years ago at a little pub in Ashwell, Hertfordshire. I found him to be a total gentleman (in every sense of the word) with a terrific sense of humour, and, which is good for Mudcat, a very practical outlook on everything.

Give the guy space, let's get on with enjoying the forum for all the information and companionship we find here.

Rhiannon

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,flamenco ted
Date: 05 May 05 - 12:00 PM

Hangings too good for him!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,flamenco ted
Date: 05 May 05 - 12:21 PM

Shit! missed out the apostrophe!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: EagleWing
Date: 05 May 05 - 01:15 PM

Oh - I thought you were going to recommend multiple hangings for him (is that Joe or Roger or someone else?)

Frank L.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 May 05 - 02:27 PM

This is getting detrimental to Mudcat, its main function and purpose.

Which is what?

If you look back you will see that increasingly its main function (for the last few years) has been to judge the worth of those who post and encourage everyone to post and judge the worth of everyone else and to gang-up and tell fellow posters to go away - if they don't like all the judgement.

Whatever the main function of our forum it - I would suggest that it is not to encourage all this judgement of each other.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 May 05 - 04:58 PM

This is getting detrimental to Mudcat, its main function and purpose.

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, it is detrimental. Shambles is now demanding a defense of our designation of the number of letter spaces allowed in a thread title, implying that some sort of tyranny was involved in allowing 40 spaces instead of 43, or 46, or 47.5. Max and Jeff and I discussed the number of spaces for titles and for title editing, and came up with a number we wanted for each. We kicked the idea around for quite a while, and tried various combinations. We may try other things in the future, but we're happy with what we have for now. I cannot recall all the steps of the decision process, and it would be unfair and unwise for me to attempt to reconstruct what Max and Jeff and I said in the discussion. We based our decision on a number of possibilities, assumptions, hunches, and experiences - along with what Shambles complains is an unfair use of "personal taste," and possibly a bit of sheer whimsy. We did what we did, and we have no reason to discuss or defend what we did. General principles are one thing - nit-picking every action we take is another.

Let's say we have no food in the house, and I want to go to the grocery store on the corner to get something to eat for dinner. Little Shambles pesters me, and I finally agree to let him tag along. As soon as we get out the door, he demands to know why I took my first step with my left foot instead of my right. When I say that it was arbitrary, that it just happened that way, he calls me a Communist and refuses to take another step until I go back inside the house and start with my right foot. I humor him the first time and start all over from the beginning; but then he complains that my stride is too long, and he demands that I match his pace exactly. So, OK, I can do that, if it keeps him happy. But then he demands that we walk on the other side of the street because he's afraid the neighbor's dog might come to the window and bark at us. But finally, we get to the store, and it closed five minutes ago.
And we starve to death on the way home.

It's really difficult to figure out what to say in response to this constant badgering that Shambles puts out. I like to be forthright about things, and my natural tendency is to answer every question that anybody asks. That doesn't apply here. Sometimes, it is unwise to reveal everything about everything, and it is sometimes not within the scope of my authority to reveal certain things. I think that applies particularly to decision processes - in most cases, there is no value in explaining or defending a process used to arrive at what outsiders may consider to be an arbitrary decision.

When I worked as a government investigator, I chose to print my notes with a ballpoint pen - mostly, because that's the way I liked to do it, but there were a number of other valid reasons that led me to do it that way - and I taught dozens of trainee investigators to do it the same way. I had a coworker who wrote his notes in a self-devised code, so nobody would be able to get any information from his notes in case he lost them. I thought his system was really stupid, but I never questioned him. I outranked him, but he was not under my supervision, so it wasn't my responsibility to interfere. However, I did not allow him to impose his system on my trainees. How he did his work was none of my business, and how I trained new employees was none of his (although he didn't quite see it that way).

As for volunteers judging the "value" of posts, I don't know what to say. The only things we deal with are personal attacks, spam, racism, and technical errors. What people think of posts beyond that doesn't have anything to do with our editorial policy. And again, we often cannot discuss our editorial decisions in detail, for a number of very valid reasons.

It seems rude to say something is "none of your damn business," but oftentimes, that's the case.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 05 May 05 - 05:00 PM

Pardon me for being third man in. Roger, it ain't yer business.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 May 05 - 05:36 PM

I dunno' Joe....Try,

"Have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up!"

Lots more fun anyway......

Spaw

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 May 05 - 07:17 PM

Well, gee, Spaw, it was just a windy way of saying I'm going to shut the fuck up, that I don't really have any answers to give to Shambles, or any reason to give them.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: jpk
Date: 05 May 05 - 09:01 PM

maybe,just maybe,if we all tried to be a little bit,just a tiny little bit "dam well civil" to every one else most of this bullshit would go away of it's own acord!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 05 May 05 - 09:18 PM

Ya think?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: kendall
Date: 06 May 05 - 08:20 AM

Joe, you can't reason with mal contents, why bother to even try?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 05 - 08:36 AM

maybe,just maybe,if we all tried to be a little bit,just a tiny little bit "dam well civil" to every one else most of this bullshit would go away of it's own acord!

It is surely worth a try.

The point about thread titles is that our volunteers consider that these are for them to impose changes upon - if and when they wish without consulting the originator.

The well-intention purpose of this is supposed to be to enable folk to find things better. An imposed change to a more informative title is thought to be for the general good.

Now my view is that if this change is thought necessary to a thread title - that the originator's permission is first sort - as a sign of respect - if nothing else and an indication that their worth has not been judged wanting - by those with a greater power.

The point is that when volunteers impose what they consider to be a more informative thread title - which could be seen as an implied judgement of the original poster's choice - they may find making a more informative title easier - simply because our volunteers are able to use more letters in the box and hence are able to create a longer thread title.

My point is simply that if ordinary posters were able to use as many letters as out volunteers are - they may be able to produce more informative titles - without the need for any inposed change.

It is surely worth a try?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 05 - 08:49 AM

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, it is detrimental. Shambles is now demanding a defense of our designation of the number of letter spaces allowed in a thread title, implying that some sort of tyranny was involved in allowing 40 spaces instead of 43, or 46, or 47.5.

I will leave others to judge - if I was in fact "demanding" anything.

I certainly was not "demanding" yet another public 'defence' of everything and a little more personal judgement thrown in. Although that is just what we usually get.

I was asking questions to establish if there was a difference in the number of title spaces available. When it was established that it was a fact that our volunteers did have more spaces available than the ordinary poster - I just suggested that perhaps a change would be a good idea.

Is it a such a bad suggestion? I will leave it to you to judge........

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 05 - 10:14 AM

Joe Offer says.

As for volunteers judging the "value" of posts, I don't know what to say. The only things we deal with are personal attacks, spam, racism, and technical errors.

I am (almost) lost for words too...The above is simply NOT true and this 'spin' is stated after I have provided the (following) evidence that proves it is NOT true. You can judge from this evidence............

The following post was recently deleted by a still unknown volunteer. It was NOT a personal attack –spam – racist – or a technical problem. The justification given by Joe Offer – before he was even aware that Ted's post had in fact been deleted or by whom – was that these type of posts were thought to be 'obnoxious'.

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 19 Mar 05 - 03:13 AM

Well, Ted, I have to admit it - your #200 message was deleted - but there were two botched messages deleted before yours, so you were actually #202....or so.
-Joe Offer-

Here's Ted's (deleted) message:
Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: flamenco ted - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 03:59 AM

200!! Terry, eat my shorts yet again!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact imposed changes to thread titles are now undertaken by our anonymous volunteers as a matter of routine. As this recent case where am imposed changed (or addition) to a BS non-music related thread was changed-back.

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-
From the following thread.

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=56969#894819


Note that the above statement from Joe Offer was posted two years ago, in response to an anonymous poster who was flooding the forum with lengthy copy-paste messages that were available elsewhere on the Internet. Context is important.
The "Romans" thread should not have been renamed. I changed it back.
-Joe Offer-

It was NOT a personal attack –spam – racist – or a technical problem – but a change was imposed upon this thread title as a matter of routine and without the originator's knowledge or consent.

Perhaps all this routine imposition and judgement can now stop – or any further 'official' explanations given as to 'what we deal with' can include these now routine actions? Which are NOT personal attacks, spam, racism, and technical errors

If there have been any lessons learned and changes made to the current censorship 'system' - as a result of these mistakes - perhaps this can be made clear?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 May 05 - 11:49 AM

Ayup, Kendall. You're right about that.
And I was so proud of myself for being so reasonable and logical. Of course, logic doesn't work with some people. They just keep repeating themselves.
Guess I'd better just ignore Sh----es.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 06 May 05 - 12:13 PM

Let it ride, Joe. You've responded to every "fact" endless times, and there will never be an end. (Now, Shambles, you can copy and paste this statement and refute it.) Temperately phrased, endless repitition is still endless repetition. "Facts" are in the eye of the beholder(another chance to copy and paste a sentence, Roger.)

Jerry

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 May 05 - 12:59 PM

Folk may have missed the (official) reply to by Joe Offer to Kedall's question. This is because in was inserted as an editorial comment into Kendall's post and did not refresh this thread.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: kendall - PM
Date: 04 May 05 - 08:02 AM

As far as I can see, the only thing that is forbidden here is personal attacks. What is wrong with that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there are a few other things, but they're relatively rare. We don't allow Spam or racism, and we don't allow lengthy non-music copy-paste posts (we encourage people to post the entire text of music information they find, and ask them to include attribution). We reserve the right to delete messages in other situations where a need may arise, but I can't think of any such situations now.
And we view thread and message titles as indexing tools that are to be used to help Mudcatters determine the contents of a thread or message. We do change thread titles and move messages to consolidate duplicate threads as part of our indexing process. And we do occasionally close threads for various reasons - but people are free to start a new thread or post to a related thread if there's a need.
The "Mehlberger" thread title was changed to enable visitors to understand what the thread contains without knowing who John Mehlberg(er) is. The Girvan thread will be changed sooner or later to something like Girvan (folk festival 2005). Threads titled "Lyr req: Lyrics Request" are routinely changed to "Lyr req:" plus song title.
With the few exceptions mentioned above, the contents of messages are rarely changed. This is a fairly comprehensive explanation of our editing policy. Does anybody but Shambles object?
The Editorial Policy is here (click) in the FAQ, last revised in 2003.
-Joe Offer-

---------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is simply that if ordinary posters were able to use as many letters as out volunteers are - they may be able to produce more informative titles - without the need for any imposed change.

It is surely worth a try?

It may very well be that a poster - would make a more informative title - if they could use the few extra spaces that our volunteers can. Especially when often the routine imposed change is simply our volunteers feeling that they need to impose a change - by adding something like 'UK'.

If the routine imposed change is just adding "Lyr req:" - perhaps when starting a thread - posters should not be given an optional choice - to use a prefix or not?

Is this illusion of an 'optional choice' a little dishonest - if a prefix is later to be imposed without the originator's knowledge or permission - as a matter of routine?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 06 May 05 - 01:37 PM

Going to the Getaway this year, Kendall? How about you, Brucie?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 May 05 - 02:09 PM

Joe,

HERE is the FAQ post that includes the Editorial Policy (page down there to find the bold subhead).

It begins with this statement:

"We occasionally get requests for information about what we delete and why we delete it. Most of the principles we follow are stated above, but let me try to state it more succinctly: The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum....."

In sections of that post above the Editorial Policy, there are guidelines about thread titling and song-posting, as well as non-music copy-pastes.

All of this information has been available to us all for quite some time, including The Shambles. (He's been invited to review those policies several times that I know of, personally.) IMO the policy is quite clear that the policy is the policy is the policy. IMO it's also clear in the FAQ that Max gives his input on policy and that you report to him; that is reflected in the FAQ numerous times.

If any member (including The Shambles) wants to comment on policy that's fine, but the policy IS THE POLICY.

Joe, you do NOT have to answer policy questions or objections in any or every thread where they pop up. One place you can answer them, if you care to, is in the FAQ thread, so that people's thoughts can be addressed and their posts retired after folks have had a chance to clarify their understanding of policy.

I have no doubt that when people offer input constructively, you receive it constructively and, often, incorporate it into your thoughts about next steps to improve Mudcat. I even know (personally) that when the input is not fully positive, in the end you usually manage to consider the thinking behind the input, and incorporate it in your thoughts in a positive fashion, as well.

I also have no doubt that these factor in when you and Jeff and Max confer about new directions, tools, or approaches. IMO, no one could reasonably expect that the process is instantaneous.

I would like to encourage you to think about a site management policy about how and where people's questions, objections, and/or input about policy will be addressed. You have used the FAQ in that way many times, with excellent results. IMO it's a really good approach that could become a stated, enforced policy. You could post a heads-up in other threads, "Please see FAQ for handling this."

Thanks again for all the good work you do here,

~Susan

PS, this post, as I understand it, belongs to me-- that anything we choose to "copyright" is our own, the site's texts otherwise belonging to Max. Therefore, I would request that if anyone quotes from my post without my express permission, such quoting be deleted immediately. Further, only Joe Offer is authorized by me to quote it.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 May 05 - 02:28 PM

Dance, dance, wherever ye may be, I am the Lord of the Dance, said he .........

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Azizi
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:12 PM

There's an old African American folk saying that "you should never let your mouth go faster than your brain."

In discussion forums such as Mudcat, that saying also applies, but now it's the fingers that are doing the talking.

And from other sources: "Those who have ears let them hear".

And

"If the shoe fits wear it."

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Azizi
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:19 PM

Also, here's a re-phrasing of a Nigerian {Ibo, West Africa} folk saying that fits some on Mudcat more than others:

"You don't praise yourself. If you are worthy, other people will praise you."

Of course, there's always the much overused African saying "It takes a village to raise a child".

And sometimes the 'village' needs to tell the person acting like a child that childhood is a thing of the past.

            
          'Those who have eyes let them see.'

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Azizi
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:27 PM

And for those who are puffed up with their own importance, here's another African American folk saying that was used as the title of a 1970s book by Alice Childress:

"A hero ain't nothin but a sandwich".

[The goes for women too].

BTW, I mean no disrespect toward those who have physical challenges to their hearing and seeing.

Enough said.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:39 PM

Azizi, I love you to bits! :)))))))

Also, here's a re-phrasing of a Nigerian {Ibo, West Africa} folk saying that fits some on Mudcat more than others:

"You don't praise yourself. If you are worthy, other people will praise you."

Sounds like Joe Offer to me. Never heard him say a good word for himself (damn right too!), but seen plenty of good words for him (added one or two grudgingly non-critical ones meself occasionally...)

Of course, there's always the much overused African saying "It takes a village to raise a child".

Do they run an adoption scheme? Cos there are one or two I could nominate as needing it... (but the gods help the poor bloody village!)

And sometimes the 'village' needs to tell the person acting like a child that childhood is a thing of the past.

{Evil grin} Oh, pleasepleaseplease... canIcanIcanI? {/Evil grin}

Oh, Roger... ;-)

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 May 05 - 04:40 PM

Drat! Sorry. Looks like I wuz careless about closing HTML...

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: jpk
Date: 06 May 05 - 05:22 PM

to top it all off,i cannot believe that anyone cares about it all that dam much, cept maybe mg and/or sham....

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 06 May 05 - 07:09 PM

I think that, at the Getaway this year, since there will be so many of Shambles thread-buddies there, we ought to have a toast to him for the service he does in uniting so many disparate souls in one grand goal.

Perhaps (I think that's his favorite word) we can get me, Joe, El Greco, Kendall, Big Mick, Ebbie, Jeri, Amos, harpgirl...I'm sure there are others...and who knows..perhaps Max...
Who else would like to join in raising a glass to our favorite purveyor of hypothetical questions?

I will be glad to take pictures!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 06 May 05 - 07:14 PM

ummm..Roger, we make a lot of music there...you oughta come sometime.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 May 05 - 08:39 PM

Excellent idea, Bill D. And Shambles, I wish you would come to the Getaway too. I can picture all of us surrounding you, glasses held high. And you would laugh, and go and sin no more...

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 05 - 01:55 AM

I never did enough of anything in the 1960s to really, truly understand this thread. Just thought I'd mention that to y'all.

"Therefore, I would request that if anyone quotes from my post without my express permission, such quoting be deleted immediately. Further, only Joe Offer is authorized by me to quote it."

"Therefore, I would request that if anyone quotes from my post without my express permission, such quoting be deleted immediately. Further, only Joe Offer is authorized by me to quote it."

Ditto that. I think. Or, maybe on second thought, don't ditto that which I have already dittoed. So just ditto the second quote but not the first. Right.

Hey, man, wanna pass that over here? Sshhhhhhhhshhssshhhshhhhshshsssshkabooooooom.

So like now, I'm changing sparkplugs on Venus, man.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:30 AM

The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum....."

It should be noted that - this of course was pinned on to the stable door long after many horses had bolted by those who wished to shape our forum by doing these things - at the time when most other long-term posters were busy shaping our forum by posting to it.

However, is The Mudcat Cafe reserving the right to do these things - really the same as anonymous volunteers now imposing them upon fellow posters as a matter of routine?

Max reserving the right to do these things is sensible.

Using this to justify needless meddling as a matter of routine, by fellow posters (some of them remaining anonymous) and the imposition of their personal taste and judgement upon the invited and freely given contributions of - other fellow posters without the originator's knowledge or consent - is not sensible.

It does not show the correct level of respect and in the long-run the division caused by it - will prove counter-productive.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:13 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Censorship on Mudcat
From: GUEST,Joe Offer - PM
Date: 18 Mar 05 - 11:28 AM

Well, I can't log in, either, so I don't have access to proof one way or another. Generally, the 100th/200th claims are a no-no in music threads and in many serious discussions. People have come to think of them as obnoxious. I don't know why, but that's what they think.
I don't bother with them, but they're fair game for the Clones.
-Joe Offer-

----------------------------------------------------------------------

As for volunteers judging the "value" of posts, I don't know what to say. The only things we deal with are personal attacks, spam, racism, and technical errors.
Joe Offer.

Can it now finally be accepted from the evidence - that it is clear FACT the above 'spin' is not true - and that ROUTINE censorship is now encouraged to be imposed by anonymous volunteers (on matters of personal taste only) - which are NOT personal attacks, spam, racism and technical errors? And that these are thought by our Editor in Chief - to "fair game" for his underlings to indulge in?

If there have been any lessons learned and changes made to the current censorship 'system' - as a result of these mistakes - perhaps this can be made clear before the following misleading 'spin' is wheeled-out yet again for our benefit - unchanged and incomplete?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: gnu
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:26 AM

I feel sorry for the clones. They HAVE to read all this stuff. I can skip posts from certain individuals or simply ignore such treads altogether... turn the thread, as it were.

Keep up (unfortunately) the good work Joe, Mick, et al.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:47 AM

Pedantic thought for the day:

There should be forfeits for posts over a certain length or for posts containing long copy-pastes, like junk mail. The Post Office would have charged excess postage, if they were real letters. And why not? Such posters abuse the storage space available to Mudcat, reducing the available space for the rest of us, possibly contributing to system crashes in some small degree, and eventually causing earlier purchase of additional storage, thus raising the running costs of Mudcat and endangering its existence!

I believe this issue to be much more important than the length of titles. Which reminds me: For the same reason, we should definitely not increase the number of characters available for title creation by posters - too much cost and risk!

But first - make junk-posters pay (this excludes April Fools and the legitimate racing towards the next 100th post, or course).

I think I'll start a campaign on this. :-)

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 May 05 - 09:20 AM

WHAT EVIDENCE ROGER???

You post the same shit over and over and it makes no sense. Your issues are becoming so laughable......the number of characters in a title line?   Has someone's life been ruined over a thread title? It just gets sillier and sillier.....Man, you got a warped groove, yaa' know?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 May 05 - 09:34 AM

I'll lead you all, wherever you may be, I'll lead you all in the dance, said he......

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,lesblank
Date: 07 May 05 - 09:39 AM

Shambles, you have fallen into the realm of the completely boring !!!
It is no wonder that, with idiots like you and Martin Gibson, the toilet papers manufacturers are reaping a financial windfall !!

Did it never occur to you that, without folks like Joe and Max and Dick, you would not have a forum to spout your totally asinine rants ??!! Get a life !!!!

Right on, JOE !!!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: kendall
Date: 07 May 05 - 10:25 AM

George, Jacqui and I will be at the Getaway. (I wont be bringing my gun)

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:27 PM

oh, good, kendall....then we only need to worry about getting HALF-shot..*grin*

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:28 PM

200

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:53 PM

hahhaha LOL, Joe O.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:56 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: harpgirl
Date: 07 May 05 - 04:03 PM

I don't know Kendall, you better bring yours. I'm bringing mine!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 07 May 05 - 04:10 PM

What's new.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 May 05 - 05:05 PM

New??? Well certainly not Harpy's.........It's pretty old and the parts make for a sloppy fit. Very, very loose...........Fortunately I don't think it gets much use anymore.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 May 05 - 07:08 PM

This is getting very suggestive.

What are Harpy and Kendall talking about?
What does Kendall's wife think about all this?
I'm not at all sure I want to know.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 05 - 08:52 PM

I for one am getting sick of seeing this thread title. I have no objections to Joe Offer and I don't see why anyone in their right mind would. I think we're lucky to enjoy his long-suffering patience and service. And one thing I am sure of is none of those who cavil and carp about him would be willing or able to do the yeoman duty he does.

A

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 07 May 05 - 10:21 PM

I think it tells it all that Shambles started this thread as a challenge to Joe to close it, just to prove how dictatorial Joe is. When Joe didn't do as Shambles suggested that he do, Shambles took it over as another whine-fest. Joe's graciousness and patience under endless second guessing and criticism pretty much proves the fallacy of Shambles charges.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: harpgirl
Date: 07 May 05 - 10:33 PM

That was sooooooo mean catspew!!!! It is NOT loose....it fits the bullets just fine.....I mean don't those little bullet things go in the hole at one of the ends???? HHHHmmmm...oh dear.....I'm confused.....I can't remember ......maybe I can find the instruction booklet......

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 May 05 - 10:44 PM

Back in a minute. Me and my pistol have to go take a cold shower. First I have to take the picture of harpy off the wall though, or it won't do any good.

Mick

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: harpgirl
Date: 07 May 05 - 10:54 PM

HEY potato pants! I'm serious!!! I'm going to arm myself to the teeth and change my name to AbbyOakley!!!!! If anyone comes to Flori-DUH and give me a hard time I'll just blast em with my sex shooter! I mean six shooter....If I can just figure out which end those little bullet thingies go in!

Hey....I've watched The Quick and The Dead!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 05 - 05:41 AM

Joe's graciousness and patience under endless second guessing and criticism pretty much proves the fallacy of Shambles charges.

The reasons for this thread and this title are explained in the first post. I will leave our forum to judge.

My charge has been proved in this thread - without any doubt at all. This was that the 'spin' wheeled-out - of what our volunteers are said to "deal with" - is not in fact what is happening.

Perhaps Jerry you are happy to be (officially) not told the truth? Your fellow posters may not be quite so happy and may question the need for this. At least in private...........

Shall we will leave our forum to judge the issue of - imposed Mudcat censorship - on the facts?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 08 May 05 - 06:14 AM

"Shall we will leave our forum to judge the issue of - imposed Mudcat censorship - on the facts?"

Our forum has, by default - in spades. All but one. No support for that one is forthcoming (the invitation to do so at the "Censorship on Mudcat" thread has remained unanswered for a week or more now. So the one, vociferous and repetitive though he may be, remains just that - ONE. And as in any democracy the wishes of one do not overshadow the wishes of the many...

Next patient, please...

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 05 - 06:18 AM

Has someone's life been ruined over a thread title?

Probably not - so why waste so much time in the first place - by imposing these changes as a matter of routine and why do some posters (who have not been subject to this imposition) waste so much time and energy in defending its imposition upon others (who may have)?

And why publicly maintain that changes MUST be imposed by anonymous volunteers - upon the originator's contribution - without their knowledge of permission?

And why not be honest in 'official' statements defending what our volunteers "deal with"?

With the poster's knowledge and permission - (which probably would be willingly given) - This can honestly be called routine 'indexing' or consolidation or whatever (if it thought that there is really such a pressing need for this). Without the originator's knowledge or permission - any other word - is just a euphemisim for routine imposed censorship.

There may well be a need at sometime on our forum - for imposed censorship. There is no need or place for it - as a matter of routine and nothing in the 'rules' that states this is to be the case.

If it is thought (by our volunteers) that there is such a need - should the reasons for this routine imposed censorship be openly explained - and not thinly disguised as something else?

If it is considered (by our volunteers) that it is too much trouble for them to try and obtain prior permission before a proposed change - perhaps this change is not so very important to make? After all - it is unlikely that someone's life has been ruined over a thread title.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 May 05 - 06:28 AM

And as in any democracy the wishes of one do not overshadow the wishes of the many...

Our forum is now a democracy? That is news to me and I suspect to Max (the site's owner).

However, my experience with Union meetings - has shown me that on the same question - a vote on a show hands - leads to quite a different result to a secret ballot.

But we do not have a vote here and any vote rather depends on the question asked.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 May 05 - 06:57 AM

Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu    
Imposed title change from 'Objection to **** ******** {named poster]'.

It was not the case in the above but a lot of the judgement by volunteers upon thread titles is that they need to be more informative. Changes are now imposed upon these titles without the originator's knowledge or permission - as a matter of routine. But perhaps this judgement is a little unfair?

It is a simple suggestion - that if posters were permitted to have the same number of spaces available to them as our volunteers do - posters may be able to make as informative titles as our volunteers impose. Perhaps this measure may prevent the need for any future title changes to be imposed as a matter of routine? The length of the imposed title above does demonstrate the sort of title that ordinary posters could not create.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 05 - 12:06 PM

If you can say it in three messages, why post only one?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 08 May 05 - 12:41 PM

Where did the other five go?

*Smiles*

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 05 - 12:56 PM

They are in the other threads being hijacked by yourself; as if you did not know!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 05 - 03:18 PM

I would rather hear Shambles than the queen of cute.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 08 May 05 - 04:42 PM

[...]a vote on a show hands - leads to quite a different result to a secret ballot.
But we do not have a vote here and any vote rather depends on the question asked.

I've wondered why I've never been able to get to the bottom of how Joe and the Clones took over Mudcat. Perhaps a poll will help establish the facts. I've attemped to set one up here.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 08 May 05 - 04:44 PM

I just voted.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 May 05 - 04:51 PM

Me too.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 08 May 05 - 05:05 PM

If this was a democracy we could vote, and there are at least three people who would be thrown out.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,autoharpy
Date: 09 May 05 - 09:02 AM

Am I the "Queen of Cute?????" Oh thank you GUEST! I have never been the queen of anything. A fiftysix year old queen of cute. Oh, boy! You made my day....

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: JennyO
Date: 09 May 05 - 09:07 AM

I just voted.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 09 May 05 - 09:57 AM

Me too.

Harpgirl, just be happy with the compliment; don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
I should know.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 05 - 10:31 AM

OK. The voting ain't movin' along too fast. No one has said the clones are agents of a foreign power. They are if you're from space, and we got a few of those around here--myself included. Where's the Mudcat spirit?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: jeffp
Date: 09 May 05 - 10:45 AM

Taken care of.

Actually, to Shambles, the clones are agents of a foreign power--Max, who is the power behind Mudcat and foreign to Roger.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 09 May 05 - 10:57 AM

I voted. I hope that the tally isn't done in Florida.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 05 - 11:01 AM

Well, I want everyone to know that I was the FIRST to vote and I said they were aliens. No thanks necessary. I take my franchise seriously.

The most unthanked and underappreciated group of people here are Max, Jeff, Joe and the many nameless clones who give their time to make this place happen and function. IMNSHO.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: JennyO
Date: 09 May 05 - 11:23 AM

Amen to that!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: JennyO
Date: 09 May 05 - 11:25 AM

BTW, I like the name of your poll, Jon :-)

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 09 May 05 - 11:52 AM

No one is a foreigner in their own country.

Aristotle

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,sneaky
Date: 09 May 05 - 12:41 PM

Ha! I voted twice! But I voted against myself the second time.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 05 - 12:48 PM

That is very bad, sneaky.

How'd you do it? I tried and couldn't.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: jeffp
Date: 09 May 05 - 01:21 PM

My guesses would be:

Multiple computers
Multiple browsers
Reset cookies then do it again

jeffp

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 May 05 - 01:52 PM

It is a bit difficult to choose the poll question that suits.

Jon - Am I supposed to choose - I'm too scared to say? *Smiles*

Perhaps some rather more serious questions in a similar poll - may be useful?

I could suggest a few basic questions. In fact - I think I may have.............

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 09 May 05 - 02:29 PM

The result on the following question may be interesting and helpful.

What do you consider to be the Mudcat Discussion Forum's main function and purpose?

Depending of course on the options given.......The follwing two options sometimes appear to be the only ones....

1. Being allowed and encouraged to say - nice things to and about our volunteers?

2. Being allowed and encouraged to say - not so nice things to and about other posters?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: jeffp
Date: 09 May 05 - 02:37 PM

3. Being allowed to say anything I feel like.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 09 May 05 - 02:39 PM

4)

I am thinking golf today, and I have never played it in my life.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 May 05 - 02:44 PM

Actually, Shambles, I DID check 'Too Scared to Say'. Hope you recognize TIC. *Smiles*

What is the main function and purpose of the Mudcat in my opinion? Connection and Community.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 May 05 - 04:32 PM

Perhaps - Music ? Does anyone remember music ??

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,jeffp
Date: 09 May 05 - 04:39 PM

HERETIC!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,sneaky
Date: 09 May 05 - 07:00 PM

To vote twice, you need a different IP address, I think. I used a proxy.
I might have voted 12 times, but it wasn't worth it.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 May 05 - 07:16 PM

3. Being allowed to say anything I feel like.

How about everyone else also being allowed to say anything they feel like?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 05 - 07:26 PM

"How about everyone else also being allowed to say anything they feel like?

Nope....too many seriously abuse that.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 May 05 - 03:17 AM

Nope....too many seriously abuse that.

'Seriously' Bill?………..Perhaps it is you who are on the wrong website?

Has someone's life been ruined over a thread title?

Over the years - there has been a lot of over-reaction and dramatic language - the use of emotive words like attacks etc - but there must be some question whether the use of words like 'serious abuse' is at all warranted. There must be also be some question if the over-prescriptive (if selective) approach to deal with this 'serious abuse' is really proportionate. These are – after all - only words on a discussion forum.

For perhaps you will accept that these measures have had very little effect - except on limiting the basic freedoms of ordinary posters and in further and needlessly dividing all of us?

The very best system of dealing with any 'abuse' is one that is open, fair and has a clear objective. The so-called 'system' – which posters are loyally expected to defend here now - is secretive, unfair and inconsistent. The very thing that - unless it is now reviewed and improved - has and will continue to provide the fuel and justification that will ensure that the issue of imposed censorship and resulting and needless division engendered by the current set-up - will just grind on and on.

If there have been any lessons learned and changes made to the current censorship 'system' - as a result of these mistakes - perhaps this can be made clear?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,FormerlyDewey
Date: 10 May 05 - 03:44 AM

Please give some examples of the "too many" you refer to Bill.

There are people who are sincere in their beliefs and they are not always looking for trouble... just sincere likeminded people who may be looking for other sincere likeminded people to share a particular belief with.

Politics doesn't seem to be banned. Posting a sincere comment about a topical discussion over the christian belief in a coming of a Chirstian anti-christ is far from the end of the world.

Art Bell, did a show on the Anti-christ, and nobody got him kicked off the radio for doing. So lighten up! You have you bias as I do. You otherwise are most likely a decent person, so please let a few things slip, without making yourself out as the final arbitrator here over coreect and in-correct postings, its a waste of your time and life as well as mine.

Everybody has their push buttons, you pushed mine when you were complaining about my going to far in my anti-christ postings, while at the same time endorsing, bush bashing threads and profuse use of porfanity, two things which are just as offensive to me, should I ever care to complain to you about them.


Joe Offer shared his Catholism here, and I for one was not offended by it.

If the topics is "Bush-bashing" there seems to be alot of heartily uncensored contributions. For you, this might NOT be taking it "too far" But who made you judge and jury.

There are conservatives on the cat too, that could scream, "You are taking this too far, as a conscervative I am offended! Please ban this guy!"

Banning of any kind is stupid and not necessary, it just adds to the problem more than resolves it. Let people have their say You don't have to contribute anything to the discussion you do not like or agree with.

I don't like the swearing and the dirty talk, but I lived with it while I was here on the cat, and didn't send you PM's trying to ban this orthat person from their own stupidity.

Who here hasn't done something stupid or opinionated!

Bush political threads are stupid and opinionated. Could this be the "too many" you are referring to?

Taking it "too far"

Formerly Dewey (who still has a life, and will not burden this message board)

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 May 05 - 04:29 AM

Yes sneaky, this poll works on one vote per IP address. Others do use cookies. Whatever method is used. there will always be pretty easy means of getting extra votes on open anonymous polls like this. I don't suppose it matters much on a large poll as I think users, if voting "by hand" would soon tire but on small polls it wouldn't take many extra votes to influence the results.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 May 05 - 04:46 AM

Hi, Dewey - we don't ban any of the things on your list. We do take action on racism, Spam, personal attacks, and a few other things that are generally understood as abuses.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Formerly Dewey
Date: 10 May 05 - 05:36 AM

Makes sense Joe! I generally know when I've stepped over the line, and can usually self correct without alot of PM's, this usually adds to the problems that many feel obligated to solve.

I think self-discretion is the way to go. And I like the rules the way they are and can abide by them.

I apologize to Mudcat for the personal and un-acceptable posts. I thought they would never reach the board in the first place. You have my assurance they will not be repeated.

I am an occasional catter, sometimes I get alot on my mind that needs to be shared and I come here to do it. My postings though, lengthy, are never intentionally personal (though one of them did end up going that way) I am extra sensitive, and write lengthy; and. sometimes I am over zealous in my religion... but, I do move on, and above all else I am not intentionally rubbing people the wrong way, unless of course I lose it which I do do on occasion, but I think I am in good company.


I hate censorship, especially when it generally is not necessary and is a great waist of time and energy.

Dewey

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 10 May 05 - 06:11 AM

Hi, Dewey - we don't ban any of the things on your list. We do take action on racism, Spam, personal attacks, and a few other things that are generally understood as abuses.
-Joe Offer-

If there have been any lessons learned and changes made to the current censorship 'system' - as a result of these mistakes - perhaps this can be made clear?

---

Unfortunately, we're human, so we may continue to make mistakes on occasion. But if we do make a mistake, we'll do our best to try to correct it. I can't promise anything more than that.
I suppose we're not a democracy, but we do our best to listen to and honor the wishes of our community.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 10 May 05 - 09:59 AM

Hi, Dewey. Hope you're keeping well, buddy.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,jOhn
Date: 10 May 05 - 11:30 AM

Mr Shambles-why dnt you shut up, and stop trying to make trubble?
anyway=this isent our forum, it is maxes, it is on his coputer, in his house, and he pays for it, so shut up.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 10 May 05 - 06:27 PM

Roger...(and dewey)when I typed 'seriously', it was a well- considered insert to modify abuse. I have been here for 9 years, and have SEEN it. Shambles, there have been things deleted and edited that YOU have never seen. There have been egregious, personal, obscene attacks and other posts that simply do not belong, and I am forever grateful that Max & Jeff worked out a system for controlling the worst of it, as well as allowing cosmetic/clarifying corrections to threads.

Your incessant harping that ANY change should be 'approved' by the original poster simply ignores practicality. Any public forum of this basic nature requires some editorial control....and this one gets less than most.

I'd tell you to give up this silly, tedious attempt to bully and harass the 'management'..(mostly Joe) into doing it your way, but by now I know better. Don Quixote was a piker next to you.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 11 May 05 - 03:46 AM

Hi Everybody! I'm gonna go back to having a life. I might post to some of you on occasion. (say maybe 2 or 3 months from now if something stirs me)

But mainly I am going to let the rest of you decide for yourselves whether mudcat is a democracy, or just a guy with a fancy computer, doaling out the free space to free loading rabble rousers and trouble makers.

To your credit, you do have a wonderful musical and lyrical database, reguardless of who does or does not like the other, or the other's topics, or other's opinions (LOL)

I would like to thank Max for that, and anyone and everyone else that has contributed to the "cat" reguardless, or temperments, ideologies, religions or political persuasions.

I am not begging to be a regular here, but I do love the site.

Seriously, its kind of you to keep it open to all, and without a lot of rules.

The world is a big place, and not everyone is going to like everyone else. But for the record: though I am not ready to give anyone here a kiss, I truly do not HATE any of you either.

Obviously, I have my favorite members as every person most likely does. It the old birds of a feather rule.

Later,

Formerly Dewey

P.S. TO BRUCIE: Its a safe bet that people who call me "pal" are likely really NOT my "pals" (not that they have to be-:)

Thought of the day:

"Is the World not big enough for us all?"

Thanks for the space!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Azizi
Date: 11 May 05 - 12:45 PM

Formerly Dewey,

It seems like you are wanting people to beg you to come back and post regualarly..

If you wanna post here, you will. But nobody gonna beg you to do so.

[However, some people may beg others to stop posting-and that's their perogative].

Formerly Dewey, you keep saying you have a life.

Well congratulations, but everybody has a life and posting on Mudcat may be a regular part or an occasional part of it.

So what??

Different strokes for different folks.

I just felt the urge to say that. I'll hold back my other thoughts..


Ms. Azizi

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Azizi
Date: 11 May 05 - 12:47 PM

"I'll hold back my other thoughts.." on this topic I mean-unless the spirit moves me to share them.

Then, I'll do my thing regardless..

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 11 May 05 - 01:17 PM

Well, Dewey, I have stuck up for you in the past as well as disagreed with you a few times. Think what you want of me. If you feel I am disingenuous enough to tell you I like you and you feel you should put me down for it, so be it. Goodbye.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 11 May 05 - 01:25 PM

I think you might recall that when you initially psoted to this forum three people were concerned enough about the nature of your posts that they got in touch with you immediately. There were three of us who cared enough to take you seriously. I was one of those three. You just ripped it with me for good. From now on, Dewey, I don't give a shit whether you post to here or not. So in the parlance, fuck you, too.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 May 05 - 01:54 PM

Your incessant harping that ANY change should be 'approved' by the original poster simply ignores practicality.

Perhaps Bill you will accept that I have said (in my harping) that there may be (rare) occasions when a post here may justifiably be subject to imposed censorship?

However, it quite disingenuous and plainly silly to NOW try and maintain that every change that our volunteers wish to make - should be imposed upon fellow posters without their knowledge or permission as a matter of routine.

If it not considered practical to first obtain permission ans show the correct respect to the invited contributios of fellow posters - perhaps there is little real need for any change?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: jeffp
Date: 11 May 05 - 01:59 PM

If it not considered practical to first obtain permission ans show the correct respect to the invited contributios of fellow posters - perhaps there is little real
need for any change?

non sequitur

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Sleepless Dad
Date: 11 May 05 - 02:00 PM

If you want repect contact Aretha Franklin. However when you are at someone elses house you have to play by their rules or leave. Not that anyone is asking you to leave - just understand how the game is played and stop complaining about something you have no control over. For crap sake man - it's only a website. It's not like your freedom of speech has been taken away from you. Step away from the computer - go outside and take a deep breath. It's OK.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 May 05 - 02:16 PM

If there have been any lessons learned and changes made to the current censorship 'system' - as a result of these mistakes - perhaps this can be made clear?

The following answer (in a brown editing comment) - was given (and inserted to my post) to the above question.

Unfortunately, we're human, so we may continue to make mistakes on occasion. But if we do make a mistake, we'll do our best to try to correct it. I can't promise anything more than that.
I suppose we're not a democracy, but we do our best to listen to and honor the wishes of our community.
-Joe Offer-

Yet more censorship mistakes – detailed on the following thread. Mistakes stemming from the idea that russhing to honour the wishes of (part) of the community means our volunteers imposing censorship on the contributions of (another part) of the community. In this case - the closing of one thread (on matters of personal taste) – leading to the creation and subsequent imposed closure of 3 threads!!!!

The whole censorship action resulted in bringing far more attention to the issue than if the contributions of fellow posters were left as they intended.

Complaints vs mudslinging

The less imposed censorship there is - undertaken as a matter now of routine - the less chance there is of making a mistake.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 May 05 - 03:25 PM

Roger, if this were a play, you in your single-minded quest would be cast as a comic character in order to give the audience a chance to moan and boo. Would you not much rather be csst as the talented songwriter you are?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 11 May 05 - 03:37 PM

Tried that one, Ebbie. Didn't work. Neither did a number of other approaches. Worse than that, he's spreading his effect on other threads, like a plague, damaging legitimate discussions. This leads me now to believe that we may be harbouring a malintent troll in our midst.

Canonisation of Joe seems in order, for what he puts up with. But not for many years to come yet, I hope.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 May 05 - 03:43 PM

The less imposed censorship there is - undertaken as a matter now of routine - the less chance there is of making a mistake. (Shambles)

This sentence is either utterly trivial or nonsense depending upon what you count as a mistake. Mistakes can be mistakes of commission or mistakes of omission. Humans have the tendency to overlook mistakes of omission.

If you only mean mistakes of commission as I guess you are trivially right. Act less and you make less mistakes of commission. Do nothing at all and you will never make any error of commission. Trivial BS.

If you also consider mistakes by omission it is far from sure that the sentence is correct. There was once a Shambles who liked to quote Niemoeller to make the point that doing nothing can be a mistake. That Shambles wouldn't agree with today's Shambles who seems to think that doing nothing has only advantages.

The less you post, Shambles, the smaller is the chance that you post nonsense sentences. But I guess that's a small chance.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 11 May 05 - 04:20 PM

The less imposed censorship there is - undertaken as a matter now of routine*

shambles - that claim is nothing more then a simple falsehood. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to make false statements , claiming them as fact, without rebuttal.

* my bolding

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 11 May 05 - 04:25 PM

MMario,

Trolls have no logic and no morals. Might as well argue with the doorpost.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 11 May 05 - 05:37 PM

"Might as well argue with the doorpost."

Ain't that what he's been doing?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 11 May 05 - 06:31 PM

"However, it quite disingenuous and plainly silly to NOW try and maintain that every change that our volunteers wish to make - should be imposed upon fellow posters without their knowledge or permission as a matter of routine."

Is that what I claimed?...if I had said something like that, YOU would have spent 2 paragraphs on the word 'every'.

Durn, Shambles...some of your logic in this thread reminds me of the reasoning I heard many years ago: "The exception proves the rule...consequently, the more exceptions, the better the rule."

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 11 May 05 - 06:38 PM

I think there should be very strict and complete censorship on even numbered days that are evenly divisible by an odd number that is also a prime number, except when that day falls in a month containing no e in its name, or if the month has more than 30 days. The one exception would be a day that also falls on a full moon just after the owl hoots three times to herald the morn in Mali.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Azizi
Date: 11 May 05 - 07:32 PM

Cue in the song "Aquarius":

"When the moon is in the Seventh House
and Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius! Aquarius!

When the moon is in the Seventh House
and Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!

As our hearts go beating through the night
We dance unto the dawn of day
To be the bearers of the water
Our light will lead the way

We are the spirit of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
Angelic illumination
Rising fiery constellation
Travelling our starry courses
Guided by the cosmic forces
Oh, care for us; Aquarius"


Click HERE
for more songs from "Hair"

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 11 May 05 - 08:37 PM

Man, that was good!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 11 May 05 - 10:37 PM

Brucie and Ms. Azizi, I just wanted to point out that that was posted by member, GUEST. It was actually an older post from Dewey.

And since I'm going, I'll say I agree with Shambles about the Damien headbutting thing, except it actually created four threads.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 11 May 05 - 11:10 PM

Well, then Guest can fuck off, too.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 May 05 - 02:10 AM

"However, it quite disingenuous and plainly silly to NOW try and maintain that every change that our volunteers wish to make - should be imposed upon fellow posters without their knowledge or permission as a matter of routine."

Is that what I claimed?...if I had said something like that, YOU would have spent 2 paragraphs on the word 'every'.

Bill – that is the now 'official' (brown) policy that you defend so strongly and so often. As follows.

Your proposal has been noted, but it has been rejected because it imposes a cumbersome procedure and restriction upon our volunteers, a procedure which appears to be unnecessary. Note, however, that efforts ARE made to respect and preserve the thread originator's work, as space allows. Ordinarily, the original thread title remains intact in the original message in the thread. Also, thread titles are usually altered by augmentation of the original title by the addition of a clarifying word or phrase, preserving the original title if space allows. If it appears that a thread originator may have trouble locating the thread after a title change, the originator is usually contacted by e-mail or personal message with information on how to locate the thread.
Joe Offer

Bill - If you do not agree with the now routine imposition by anonymous volunteers upon the contributions of their fellow posters without obtaining their knowledge or permission – then please say so?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 May 05 - 04:56 AM

The less you post, Shambles, the smaller is the chance that you post nonsense sentences. But I guess that's a small chance.
Wolfgang

Wolfgang was that just another of your nonsense posts to mock the style of what you judge to be my nonsence posts - or was it an attempt at a serious post - that just resulted in being nonsense? It is becoming difficult to tell.

The details of the mistakes referred to are all in the following thread Complaints vs mudslinging   Perhaps we can leave our forum to decide on these mistakes - who is posting nonsense and why anyone would wish to respond so often - to what they consider to be such nonsense?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 May 05 - 05:07 AM

Perhaps we can leave our forum to decide on these mistakes

Perhaps shambles could follow his own advice.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 May 05 - 05:09 AM

You are permited to lead a horse to water. The choice to drink is then up to the horse.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 May 05 - 05:38 AM

Correct. You keep leading the horse to the water, and the horse has repeatedly chosen not to drink from your trough. Will you now let the horse go? It's getting increasingly annoyed.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 May 05 - 05:51 AM

Apologies. I just tried to reason with a troll - silly me!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 May 05 - 07:15 AM

Shambles,

if you really can't tell the difference (or do you just pretend to avoid answering?) I can tell it to you:

The last sentence, the one you have quoted, was mockery. The rest not.
I think you are seriously mistaken and in contradiction to yourself when you claim inaction necessarily avoids mistakes. It only avoids mistakes of commission and not those of omission. That is by the way one of the very fundamental mistakes in your whole argumentation against corrective actions here.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 12 May 05 - 07:30 AM

Ego amo ullus proprius dedi iustus amo meus mam beatus suus tabernus socks. Three pro pretium of duos in Asda cant pello pepulli pulsum is , quod have vos seen pretium of rats illa dies facinarose.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 May 05 - 07:36 AM

Sttaw,

so, you love proper ululations and you just love your mum to beat you with her tavern socks (the second sentence about the three pros singing outside Asda foxed me, I have to say).

Did I get that right?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 12 May 05 - 08:03 AM

EG
Oh heck - Latin aint what it used tobe

I didn't know they were selling foxes at Asda, dont tell Flamenco Ted

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Azizi
Date: 12 May 05 - 08:11 AM

Rustic Rebel 11 May 05 - 10:37 PM said:

"Brucie and Ms. Azizi, I just wanted to point out that that was posted by member, GUEST. It was actually an older post from Dewey."

I believe that Rustic Rebel is referring to this post:

"Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 11 May 05 - 03:46 AM"

From reading that post I had assumed that "Formerly Dewey" had written it. But now-thanks to Rustic Rebel's post-I think that this is the cut and paste work of one of the nameless Guests.

It seems to me that cutting & pasting another person's posts should be a big 'no no' here at Mudcat. I suppose the Guest/Troll knew that and just wanted to stir up more trouble.

In the future I will be more careful about jumping to conclusions about what is attributed to people by anonymous Guests.

And, right now I will say "Ditto" to the words Brucie provided in his
11 May 05 - 11:10 PM post.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 12 May 05 - 12:54 PM

Rustic Rebel is a class act. Thanks for pointing that out, RR.

BM

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Bill D
Date: 12 May 05 - 02:02 PM

"Bill - If you do not agree with the now routine imposition by anonymous volunteers upon the contributions of their fellow posters without obtaining their knowledge or permission – then please say so?"

mercy! How you DO twist words!

I certainly DO agree with the "official policy". I do NOT agree with your formulation of it. You have couched the question in a classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?" mode. You phrase the matter in loaded words, and then dare us to respond to your skewed phrases.

I do agree with the policy of allowing several people to help Joe & Jeff with various editorial chores, with the understanding that all final decisions are to be left to Joe & Jeff. I do NOT agree that Joe, Jeff or any of the helpers should be required to obtain 'permission' to do minor editing....*IF* there is a problem (there usually isn't)with editing (if the contributor objects) it can be discussed quietly by PMs and adjustments can be made, if necessary. THIS IS A MODERATED FORUM...that means moderation will occasionally be done, and by implication, the final decisions are under the control of the moderators.

...ok? Does that clarify my position? Good...I thought it would.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 May 05 - 02:14 PM

"Moderation" is not in a troll's vocabulary, BillD. If it was we would not be seeing the mass of humongous postings regurgitating the same old excreta.

(it's OK, I'm using a dictionary today)

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 12 May 05 - 02:31 PM

Latin at that.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 12 May 05 - 06:38 PM

You know, I think I posted incorrectly. I thought we had a member that went by the handle GUEST. Seems like I read a post of his that he chose the name and signed up. I see the GUEST below isn't the member GUEST because there is not a pm after the name, so for all I know now, it could have been Dewey, re-posting an old post?!
okay-I'm stepping back out of this one now....
creating my own confusion, Rustic

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 09:02 AM

I do NOT agree that Joe, Jeff or any of the helpers should be required to obtain 'permission' to do minor editing....*

And I am accused of 'skewed' logic.

Bill - If the originator's permission is not first obtained - then your eupemistic - "minor editing" - becomes censorship. Imposed upon the contributions of their fellow posters - by anonymous volunteers.

And this censorship imposed now as a matter of routine - on a trivial excuse to do so - and based only on our anonymous volunteer's personal judgement. This imposed personal judgment and the example currently being set by this - now threatens to shape our forum more than our freely given contributions do.

We are 'offically' told (by our volunteers) that these unknown number of anonymous volunteers are 'trusted' by Mudcatters. How can Mudcatters be said to trust anyone whose names are intentionally witheld from Mudcatters? Is there really any at all - trust in this?

Can this please now be reviewed and changed to something that is open, fair and has a clear objective - rather than something that seems to be designed simply for some posters to be able to impose their (flawed) personal judgement upon their fellow posters?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 13 May 05 - 09:37 AM

Rustic, thank you anyway.

Bruce

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 13 May 05 - 10:20 AM

Who are these 'volunteers'then? Can I become one? I would love to edit you lot!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 13 May 05 - 10:27 AM

shambles? Your point is what? This is a privately owned site. Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time. If this is not agreeable - then don't post.

that is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is a fact of life. Live with it.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 13 May 05 - 10:49 AM

Somrthing tells me that M.Mario is a 'volunteer'

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 13 May 05 - 10:55 AM

the "m's" aren't seperate. Whether or not I am a volunteer is not an issue. I am and have been deeply involved in this forum and this site for a long, long time. That's a matter or record. As I have been with other sites.

The fact is - any owner of a private site can delete or change content of the site at whim. So can their designees. There is no legal recourse. period. end of discussion. This is true of ANY private site.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 13 May 05 - 10:55 AM

300!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 13 May 05 - 11:04 AM

Alright, who pinched my 300???

MMario,
       Yes.Agreed. Iknow. I don't really give a hoot who censors what! To me mudcat is the following:-

1) A good way of finding out what is going on musically in my area.
b) A bit of a titter.

The flamenco sites that I use are much more heavily censored than mudcat, AND THEY DON'T ALLOW GUESTS TO POST!

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 May 05 - 12:25 PM

LOL.....What makes this entire thing so ridiculous are these threads of explanations and Joe's explanations on the threads as to WHY things happen as they do. I don't know of any toher sight that does anything even close to that. And at this point, it's what Joe, Jeff, and the Clones need to do. Just make the changes ... PERIOD. Someone wants an explanation they can put a note in HELP Forum or PM Joe. A thread like this starts, they close it. Just do the job and flush the explanation crap. It is what it is.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 12:32 PM

shambles? Your point is what? This is a privately owned site. Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time. If this is not agreeable - then don't post.

that is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is a fact of life. Live with it.

MMario

You may be prepared to accept that the new 'rules' were introduced (by our volunteers) some years after many of us had been posting? These new 'rules' now state that the 'management' 'reserve the right' to do these things.....That is the truth that you have to accept and live with.

For perhaps you will also accept that - the 'management' reserving this right - is NOT the same thing at all - as our unknown volunteers feeling qualified to impose their personal judgement upon the contributions of fellow posters - now as a matter of routine?

To be fair - many of our volunteers may be well-intentioned and may not wish to do this (just as many do not feel they need to keep their volunteership a secret). Perhaps if they do not agree with this routine censorship or do not like being tarred with the same brush - they can address this point with those volunteers who do feel themselves qualified to now impose their personal judgement upon the invited contributions of their fellow posters - as a matter of routine?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 13 May 05 - 12:39 PM

Shambles - what part of "Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time." don't you understand? Regardless of what you, I or ANYONE ELSE thinks, agrees to, or says.

Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.

fact.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 01:27 PM

EDITORIAL POLICY.

The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum. We will try our best to edit sparingly, but there are times when we may have to take some action to keep the peace, or to protect the interests of our community.

As I have stated - these are new 'rules' but where MMario does it say in these 'rules' - that our unknown volunteers feel qualified to impose their personal judgement upon the contributions of fellow posters - now as a matter of routine - where there are no issues of peace-keeping or protecting the interests of all our community?

I am sorry but the words 'reserving the right' and 'sparingly' do not mean the imposing of anonymous volunteer's personal jugement upon the invited contributions of fellow posters - as a matter now of routine.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST
Date: 13 May 05 - 01:34 PM

Shambles - what part of "Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time." don't you understand? Regardless of what you, I or ANYONE ELSE thinks, agrees to, or says.

Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.

fact.

this is despite anything anyone, including max, has ever said or posted.

Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.

this is outside any forum rules, site rules, agreements, opinions.

Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.

It is not a point that is debatable or that can currently be changed by anything less then an act of the US congress, or a change in the lagal status of the site.

Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 13 May 05 - 01:45 PM

sorry - that was me above.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 01:46 PM

That this may be a RIGHT for the management - does not alter the FACT that the management in their EDITORIAL POLICY have CLEARLY stated that it is a RIGHT - the management reserves - for the reasons stated in their EDITORIAL POLICY.

Please argue with what the management's EDITORIAL POLICY now states - or with what our volunteers want to tell you that it states - not with me.

Or "learn to live with it". *Smiles*

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 13 May 05 - 01:53 PM

Roger - regardless of what is stated in the Editorial policy.

Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.

they would have that right even if Max specifically denied having it.

I am not argueing. I am not debating. I am stating a fact.

do you understand that Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.?

It's a yes or no question. And guess what - even if you don't understand the statement - it is still true. You don't have to learn to live with it. it's fact.

furthermore - if one of max's designess deletes or edits contrary to Max's wishes - he is ultimately answerable only to Max. Not you, not me, not anyone other then Max.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 May 05 - 01:57 PM

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles - PM
Date: 13 May 05 - 01:46 PM

That this may be a RIGHT for the management - does not alter the FACT that the management in their EDITORIAL POLICY have CLEARLY stated that it is a RIGHT - the management reserves - for the reasons stated in their EDITORIAL POLICY.

Please argue with what the management's EDITORIAL POLICY now states - or with what our volunteers want to tell you that it states - not with me.

Or "learn to live with it". *Smiles*

I have no idea what you are trying to argue here. Geeziz Man, you are over the edge! That is total jibberish Roger!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 02:12 PM

MMario - is this better?

EDITORIAL POLICY. (suggested revision)

The Mudcat Cafe as a matter of routine - will edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum. We will not do this sparingly, but we will impose this on every contribution - even when there is no need to take any action to keep the peace, or to protect the interests of our community.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 13 May 05 - 02:24 PM

ROGER - DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.

yes or no.

I did not ask for a suggest editortial pilicy.

I did not ask whether or not you or I consider what editing is currently being done "routine" or not, correct or not, moral or not.

a simple question. do you understand the fact that Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content at any time.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 03:05 PM

MMario

Of course I understand the EDITORIAL POLICY - perhaps you do not as your words are not there - are they? I also understand that Max has the right to do as he wishes and no one is making any attempt to deny or take this right away from Max.

However I seen no evidence that Max's intention in opening this part of his private site as a public discussion forum - was to deny or take away from the public the right to express themselves in the manner of their choosing.

Even the new 'rules' introduced in the EDITORIAL POLICY should make this clear - even to you.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jeri
Date: 13 May 05 - 03:08 PM

MMario, you ask Shambles if he understands.

Yes. Of course he<does. What he understands is that trolling works here because people care and they mostly don't pick up on the fact that<a troll doesn't need a motive other than<to keep prodding and provoking those caring people every once in a while.

Shambles will continue to argue (and create his own dialect in the process). People are still trying<- three years after he started -<to either reason with him or<at least get him to shut up. It's not going to happen, since his only motive appears to be to continue forever. With the assistance he's been getting from folks, he shouldn't have<any problem doing<that.
<<<
Mudcat is what it is. It's<too<big<for any<one person, save<for those with control over the Almighty Code, to affect very much. Shambles<will complain, and nothing much will change. We may try to<get him<to stop complaining, and nothing much will change. We may become frustrated and angry at people or what they do, and nothing much will change... except we're frustrated and angry. This is<fine for those - and the numbers seem to be increasing - who enjoy being frustrated and angry. If you enjoy perpetual pointless argument, keep on goin'.
<<<
MMario, Shambles doesn't<want a resolution. He doesn't want<to understand or even honestly express what he personally DOES want because a clear goal can<be either met<or dismissed and his day in<the spotlight will<be over.
<<<
Would everyone involved in arguing with Shambles do me a favor? Ask yourself what you hope to accomplish in threads like<this, and why your method will be effective. If your goal<is anything other than 'more of the same', you<may want to<do<a reality check.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 13 May 05 - 03:12 PM

again - shambles - you are not answering the question I asked.

do you or do you not understand Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content of this site at any time.

This is despite any stated or unstated editorial policy. it is a right conveyed by Max's ownership of the site.

I do not see how you could possibly not understand this. I do not ask that you agree with it. but it is indeed true and nothing anyone (even Max) says changes that fact.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 03:29 PM

Somrthing tells me that M.Mario is a 'volunteer'

MMario

I will not demand answers from you. I do not have that right. The following are your words - they are not Max's words.

Max and/or his designated assignees have the right to delete or edit any content of this site at any time.

Everyone else is supposed to now follow it - why are you ignoring the words of the EDITORIAL POLICY - or do you think they not apply to you?

There is always a balance with our rights. If your words were pinned-up when Max started our forum and I first posted - you may have a point. But they were not - were they?

MMario - 'don't sweat the rules - for there are none' were not your words either.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 03:40 PM

Perhaps Jeri if you do not wish to post and say anything to me - could you please set a better example and not post publicly to say things about me?

It would be considered as offensive to do this in company and it is just as offensive to do this online.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,john q. public
Date: 13 May 05 - 03:47 PM

not in this case.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Jeri
Date: 13 May 05 - 03:48 PM

Perhaps Jeri if you do not wish to post and say anything to me - could you please set a better example and not post publicly to say things about me?

I probably could, but I will not. Shouldn't you be setting an example of not criticising another poster's contribution anyhow? LOL

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: The Shambles
Date: 13 May 05 - 04:06 PM

Jeri

Some may say that your contribution was a just personal attack and name-calling of a fellow poster.

Some may even ask our volunteers to delete it.

Jeri do you think there any chance of you imposing editing action upon your own post - or of any other volunteer doing this?

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: GUEST,restating the obvious
Date: 13 May 05 - 04:17 PM

making a comment about truths that are self evident is not name calling nor a personal attack.

Subject: RE: Objections to Joe Offer
From: Peace
Date: 14 May 05 - 01:26 AM

This is just like soap operas.

I once (for a period of four or five months) watched The Young and the Senseless"--part of a school project. I then didn't see it for many years. I watched it again, and within two or three days was right up to speed again, just like I'd never left.

Deja vu all over again.